Kerala High Court
Hameed.M.E vs The State Of Kerala on 27 September, 2013
Author: Thomas P. Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/5TH ASWINA, 1935
Bail Appl..No. 6311 of 2013 (B)
-------------------------------------------
[CRIME NO. 339/2013 OF RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION ,
KASARGOD DISTRICT]
....................
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
----------------------------------
HAMEED.M.E., AGED 49 YEARS,
S/O.IBRAHIM HAJEE, RESIDING AT RAFEEQ MANZIL,
PARIYARAM, P.O.PANATHUR, PANATHADY VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
--------------------------------
THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Prv.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------
Bail Appl. No. 6311 of 2013
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of September 2013
O R D E R
Petitioner is accused, in Crime No.339 of 2013 of the Rajapuram Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 427 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. Case is that on 25.06.2013 at about 8.00 pm, while the defacto complainant who is the brother in law of the petitioner, along with his workers was travelling in a car belonging to the defacto complainant and when they reached the place of occurrence, the petitioner fired two gun shots which hit the car on different parts.
3. The learned counsel submits that the allegations are totally false. Referring to Annexure VII, it is contended that there was an earlier attempt by the defacto complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in a case for keeping in possession a country made gun and counterfeit currency notes, the investigating agency found that the defacto complainant had falsely implicated the petitioner and thereon, the investigating agency Bail Appl. No. 6311 of 2013 2 proceeded against the petitioner. Referring Annexure II, FIR in Crime No.338 of 2013 and the FIS given by the Sale Tax officer it is contended that the said incident allegedly took place at 8.00 pm. on 25.06.2013 ( when the incident in Crime No.339 of 2013 is said to have taken place) and that the statement of the Sale Tax Officer would show that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner and containing sand and was brought to the Sale Tax office by the defacto complainant while according to the defacto complainant ( in Crime No.339 of 2013) motive for firing gun shots on him is that the petitioner was under the impression that it was the defacto complainant who had informed the sale tax authorities about vehicle of the petitioner carrying sand and coming along the road.
4. Based on what the learned counsel has pointed out as the improbabilities of the case, I cannot enter finding regarding the truth of allegations made against the petitioner in this proceeding. Learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out from the Mahazar for the Bail Appl. No. 6311 of 2013 3 vehicle prepared by the investigating officer, that the car had damage and which could have been caused by gun shots. The matter is under investigation. The officer investigating the case has to conduct a thorough investigation of the matter with reference to all relevant matters.
5. Having heard the learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am not satisfied that this is a case where I should exercise the extra ordinary power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
6. The remedy available to the petitioner is either to surrender before the investigating officer or approach the Court concerned and seek regular bail.
This petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE NS