Kerala High Court
Moideen vs S.I.Of Police Rajapuram on 3 April, 2012
Author: M. Sasidharan Nambiar
Bench: M.Sasidharan Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2012/14TH CHAITHRA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 2021 of 2012 (C)
-------------------------------------------
[CRIME NO.83/12 OF RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT]
..........
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 TO 4:
----------------------------------------------
1. MOIDEEN,
S/O.LATE POKKER, AGED 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HAJARA MANZIL, 18TH MILE,
KOLICHAL P.O.,VIA., RAJAPURAM, KALLAR PANCHAYATH,
KASARAGODE DISTRICT.
2. MUNEER .M,
S/O.P.MOIDEEN,AGED 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT THAYIL QUARTERS, 18TH MILE,
KOLICHAL P.O.,VIA., RAJAPURAM,KALLAR PANCHAYATH,
KAARAGOD DISTRICT.
3. SALIM .M,
S/O. LATE P.MOIDEEN, AGED 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HAJARA MANZIL, 18TH MILE,
KOLICHAL P.O, VIA., RAJAPURAM, KALLAR PANCHAYATH,
KASARAGODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.T.JOSE.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
-------------------------------------------------
1. S.I.OF POLICE RAJAPURAM
(IN KASARAGOD DIST)REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
*ADDITIONAL R.2. IMPLEADED:
2. K.A. SHAFI, S/O. ABDULLA,
RESIDING AT KAROLI HOUSE,
PANATHOOR, PANATHADY VILLAGE,
POST PANATHOOR,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R.2. VIDE ORDER DTD. 03/04/12 IN
CRL.M.A. NO.2035/12 IN B.A. NO.2021/12.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.K. RAJEEV,
ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03-04-2012, ALONG WITH B.A. NO.2037/2012, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Prv.
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
------------------------------------------
BA Nos.2021 & 2037 of 2012
------------------------------------------
Dated 3rd April, 2012
O R D E R
Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.83 of 2012 of Rajapuram Police Station registered for the offences under Section 452, 323 and 324 read with 34 of IPC. Apprehending arrest, petitions are filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, who got himself impleaded as second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. The argument of learned counsel appearing for petitioners is that the case is foisted and petitioners did not commit any offence and in any case, petitioners in B.A.2037 of 2012 are not involved in the incident at all and petitioners are prepared to abide by any condition and in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, they be released on bail.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition Ba 2021 & 2037/12 2 and made available the case diary. It is submitted that if petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, it would adversely affect proper investigation. Learned counsel appearing for second respondent pointed out that the Treatment Certificate reveals that the defacto complainant sustained fracture of nasal bone also and therefore even an offence under Section 326 of IPC is attracted.
3. On perusing the case diary made available by learned Public Prosecutor, I do not find that petitioners are to be granted anticipatory bail as sought for as it would adversely affect proper investigation. Learned counsel then submitted that petitioners may be permitted to surrender before the Investigating Officer.
4. Petitioners are directed to report before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today for interrogation. After completing interrogation, petitioners shall be produced before the concerned Magistrate without delay. In that event, petitioners are at liberty to file applications for bail. If such applications are filed, learned Ba 2021 & 2037/12 3 Magistrate to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law without delay. If petitioners fail to report before the Investigating Officer as directed, Investigating Officer is at liberty to arrest them.
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk