Muhammadali K.K vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 21137 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
    WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA, 1943
                       BAIL APPL. NO. 7482 OF 2021
        CRIME NO.463/2021 OF Valayam Police Station, Kozhikode
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1032/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT &
                   SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE


PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :-

    1       MUHAMMADALI K.K.
            AGED 31 YEARS
            S/O. KUNHABDULLAH, KOKANDERI HOUSE,
            PARAKKADAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,

    2       MAJEED P.K
            AGED 42 YEARS
            S/O. HAMEED, KUNHIKKANDY HOUSE,
            TUNERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

            BY ADVS.
            P.V.ANOOP
            PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP
            K.V.SREERAJ


RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :-

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682031.

    2       STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
            VALAYAM POLICE STATION,
            KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673517.

            BY SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS   BAIL    APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
20.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 7482 OF 2021
                                    2

                              ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime

No.463 of 2021 of Valayam Police Station, Kozhikode

District registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 and 294(b)

r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have moved this

application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

2. The prosecution allegation is as follows :-

On 19.08.2021 at about 18.20 hours they have

formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in

prosecution of the common object to attack the defacto

complainant and while he was travelling in his car,

they intercepted the vehicle. The first accused

dragged him out of the car and kicked on his abdomen

and the second accused had attempted to hit him with a

stone on his head. Somehow or other he evaded the

same. Had it been otherwise, it would have caused his

death. The third accused with a stone broken the front BAIL APPL. NO. 7482 OF 2021

glass of the car driven by the defacto complainant and

caused a loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Thereby,

they have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners have

submitted that they were booked in this case due to

political rivalry. They have not committed any offence

as alleged by the prosecution. So also the defacto

complainant has not sustained any injury in the

alleged attack by these petitioners. But they

apprehend unnecessary arrest and hence this

application.

5. According to the learned Public Prosecutor no

serious injury was caused to the defacto complainant,

though he was attacked by these petitioners due to

their enmity towards him. Now the investigation of the

case is well in progress and none of the accused have

been arrested and that is the reason for the delay in

proceeding with the investigation.

6. The nature of the accusation levelled against BAIL APPL. NO. 7482 OF 2021

these petitioners would show that in prosecution of

the common object to attack the defacto complainant,

the petitioners have encircled him and dragged him out

of the car and attempted to cause injuries. But he

has not sustained any serious injuries in the attack

by these petitioners as well as by the other accused.

But his car was damaged by these petitioners and loss

to the tune of Rs.10,000/- was caused in the attack by

these petitioners as well the other accused.

Having regard to the nature of accusation

levelled against these petitioners as well the other

facts and circumstances involved in this case, I think

that custodial interrogation of these petitioners may

not be required for the investigating agency to

proceed with the investigation of the case, which is

well in progress. Therefore, I think that this

application can be disposed of directing them to

surrender before the investigating officer on

27.10.2021 between 10.00 am and 12.00 pm. Upon their

surrender, after recording their arrest and

interrogation, they shall be produced before the BAIL APPL. NO. 7482 OF 2021

jurisdictional Magistrate on the very same day. If an

application for bail is moved by these petitioners,

the same shall be disposed of, without any delay,

preferably on the very same day.

With this direction, this bail application is

disposed of.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE SMA