Kerala High Court
Majeed vs State Of Kerala on 30 May, 2017
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY,THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2017/9TH JYAISHTA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 3583 of 2017 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 385/2017 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
--------------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:-
----------------------------------------
1. MAJEED,
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMMAD,
KUNNUMMAL, P.O.CHENOLY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
2. YUSAF,
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMMAD,
KUNNUMMAL, P.O.CHENOLY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
3. SIRAJ,
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMMAD,
KUNNUMMAL, P.O.CHENOLY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
4. AHAMMED,
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.ALIKKUTTY,
KUNDUNGAL, P.O.CHENOLY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
5. ISMAIL,
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM,
MALAYIL, NOCHAD P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
6. MUNEER,
AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM,
MALAYIL, NOCHADU P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
7. T.P.NASAR,
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMMAD,
CRESCENT HOUSE, VALOOR,
P.O.CHENOLY,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.D.FEROZE
2/-
-2-
BA.NO.3583/2017
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:-
--------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
(CRIME NO.385/2017 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT).
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PERAMBRA POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 001.
(CRIME NO.385/2017 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT).
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. MAYA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30-05-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J
-----------------------------------
B.A. No.3583 of 2017
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2017
ORDER
1.This application is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.
2.At the outset itself it has to be mentioned that the earlier application seeking similar reliefs was dismissed by this court by order dated 09/05/2017. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners were unable to produce materials which would unmistakably point to the frivolous nature of the allegations raised against them. By the earlier order dated 9.5.2017 in B.A. No.2749 of 2017, the relief of pre- arrest bail was granted to the 4th accused and in so far the petitioners herein were concerned, the application was dismissed.
3.The petitioners have been arrayed as the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 8 in Crime No.385 of 2017 of Perambra Police BA 3583/2017 2 Station. The aforesaid crime was registered alleging offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 & 308 read with section 149 of the IPC.
4.It is pointed out by the learned counsel that at the instance of the petitioners herein or their near relatives Crime Nos.384/2017, 386/2017, 387/2017 & 388/2017 of the Perambra Police Station were registered in respect of separate incidents which took place on 8.4.2017 between 7.30 p.m. and 9 p.m. The copies of the FIR in these cases is produced as Annexure I, III, IV and V. According to the learned counsel, Crime No.385 of 2017, in which the petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused, was registered after Crime No.386/2017, in which case the 3rd petitioner herein is the de facto complainant.
5.The learned counsel would further contend that it was finding that the de facto complainant had sustained a lacerated wound on his scalp that pre arrest bail was denied on the earlier occasion. Referring to the accident BA 3583/2017 3 register cum wound certificate of the petitioners it is pointed that the petitioners were at the receiving end and at their instance 4 crimes have been registered.
6.The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand does not dispute that Crime Nos.384/2017, 386/2017, 387/2017 & 388/2017 have been registered at the instance of the petitioners herein or their near relatives. Unfortunately these aspects were not brought to the notice of the Court either by the accused or by the prosecution at the earlier stage. It appears that registration of the instant crime was as a counter blast to the other crimes registered at the instance of the petitioners. Having regard to the sequence of events and also the allegations in the crimes registered at the instance of the petitioners, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for being enlarged on pre- arrest bail. The requirements for a proper investigation could be met with by imposing appropriate condition to be observed by the petitioners. BA 3583/2017 4
7.In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. If they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.
(ii)The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Saturday for a period of one month or till the final report is filed whichever is earlier.
(iii)The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
(iv)The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
(vi) If they surrender before the Magistrate, this order shall not be applicable and the learned BA 3583/2017 5 Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.
(vii) In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the concerned court on being noticed of that fact will be empowered to cancel the bail.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
vps /True Copy/
PS to Judge