Abdul Rahiman vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 4442 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

  MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942

                Bail Appl..No.1206 OF 2021

 CRIME NO.23/2021 OF Pudunagaram Police Station, Palakkad


PETITIONER/S:

     1     ABDUL RAHIMAN
           AGED 35 YEARS
           SON OF MAHDOON, THEKKATHI VATTARAM,
           NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PERUMBU VILLAGE,
           PUDUNAGARAM, CHITTUR TALUK,
           PALAKKAD DISTRICT
           600011

     2     SIKKANDER BASHA
           AGED 29 YEARS
           SON OF MAHDOON, THEKKATHI VATTARAM,
           NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PERUMBU VILLAGE,
           PUDUNAGARAM, CHITTUR TALUK,
           PALAKKAD DISTRICT
           600011

           BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.SREEJA -PP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1314/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Bail Appl..Nos.1206 OF 2021 & 1314 OF 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942

Bail Appl..No.1314 OF 2021

CRIME NO.22/2021 OF Pudunagaram Police Station, Palakkad

PETITIONER/S:

1 ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 35 YEARS SON OF MAHDOON, THEKKATHI VATTARAM, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PERUMBU VILLAGE, PUDUNAGARAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 600011

2 SIKKANDER BASHA, AGED 29 YEARS SON OF MAHDOON, THEKKATHI VATTARAM, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PERUMBU VILLAGE, PUDUNAGARAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 600011

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R1 BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SMT.V.SREEJA -PP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1206/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Bail Appl..Nos.1206 OF 2021 & 1314 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER

[ Bail Appl..1206/2021, Bail Appl..1314/2021 ]

Dated this the 8th day of February 2021

Applications for regular bail under Section

439 Cr.P.C.

The applicants are brothers and they are

accused in two crimes of Pudunagaram Police

Station, Palakkad. BA No.1206/2021 is filed for

regular bail in Crime No.23/2021, while BA

No.1314/2021 is filed for bail in Crime

No.22/2021. Crime No.23/2021 is registered for

offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 308

r/w Section 34 of the IPC. While Crime No.22/2021

is for offences punishable under Section 332 r/w

Section 34 of the IPC. In that crime the

applicants are accused Nos.1 and 4. There are only

two accused in Crime 23/2021.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on Bail Appl..Nos.1206 OF 2021 & 1314 OF 2021

29.01.2021 at about 3 p.m, the applicants in

furtherance of common intention, attacked the de

facto complainant, because he had some civil

dispute pertaining to some land involving the de

facto complainant and the father of the

applicants. The applicants allegedly obtained a

favourable decree in OS No.1/2011 from the

Additional Munsiff Court, Palakkad. The de facto

complainant allegedly violated that order of the

said court. Police assistance was given to carry

out the order of the court and consequently the

police officers reached the scene of occurrence.

E.P No.112/2017 of the Principal Munsiff's Court,

Palakkad was being implemented. The Taluk Surveyor

and Village Officer were also present. The court

had ordered police assistance in view of the

resistance by the judgment debtor who is the de

facto complainant. The applicants had come to the

assistance of their father who is the plaintiff in Bail Appl..Nos.1206 OF 2021 & 1314 OF 2021

the suit, the de facto complainant again caused

obstructions. There was a scuffle in which the de

facto complainant was allegedly stabbed by the

first accused with a knife, which could have

proved even fatal and thus they committed the

offence of culpable homicide. When the police

officers who were present at the scene of

occurrence attempted to intervene between the

applicants and the de facto complainant, they were

also assaulted in consequence of which the

applicants as also the de facto complainant and

others who are defendant in that suit were also

arrayed as accused and there are a total of four

accused in Crime No.22/2021 for committing offence

punishable under Section 332 of the IPC.

3. The applicants state that they do not have

any criminal antecedents. The injuries are not

life threatening. The police officers had

sustained only minor injury in which both the Bail Appl..Nos.1206 OF 2021 & 1314 OF 2021

plaintiff and the defendant in the civil suit are

arrayed as accused. Considering these facts, the

applicants state that they were provoked only

because the lawful order which their father had

obtained from a civil suit was not capable of

being implemented despite interference by the

police and government officials. The de facto

complainant was ignoring the lawful decree of the

court obtained by the plaintiff in the suit. The

applicants have no any criminal antecedents. They

are willing to abide by any conditions. The

recovery is already complete. Therefore, they seek

bail.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the

applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor points out

that the applicants were arrested on 29.01.2021 in

both the cases and have been in custody since

then. It is admitted that the applicants do not Bail Appl..Nos.1206 OF 2021 & 1314 OF 2021

have any criminal antecedents. The recovery is

complete. The police officer had only sustained a

minor injury. But the de facto complainant in

Crime No.23/2021 has sustained a stab injury

caused with a knife. However, injury is not life

threatening. Under the circumstances, I find that

further incarceration of the applicants is not

necessary.

6. In the result, the bail applications are

allowed and the applicants are directed to be

released on bail on execution of bond for

Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) in each of

the cases with two solvent sureties each for the

like amount to the satisfaction of the

jurisdictional court and on the following

conditions;

1.They shall appear before the investigating

officer as and when called for.

2.They shall not attempt to influence or Bail Appl..Nos.1206 OF 2021 & 1314 OF 2021

intimidate the witnesses.

3.They shall not get involved in similar

offences during the currency of the bail.

In the event of violating the bail conditions,

the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for

cancellation of bail which shall be considered and

disposed of by the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON JUDGE SPK