Kerala High Court
Muhammed Musthafa vs The State Of Kerala on 3 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 6247 OF 2021
CRIME NO.487/2021 OF Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 625/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT&
SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-
MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. YUSUF, ALAYAN HOUSE,
ARAKKUPARAMBU, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV P.SAMSUDIN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :-
THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 6247 OF 2021
2
ORDER
Petitioner who is the accused in Crime
No.487/2021 of Perinthalmanna Police Station,
Malappuram District registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 427
of the Indian Penal Code, has moved this application
apprehending arrest.
2. The prosecution allegation is that on
29.06.2021 at about 11.00 pm while the defacto
complainant was riding his motorcycle through a public
road, this petitioner intercepted the said vehicle and
dragged him out of the same and manhandled him. He has
hit him with a granite stone on his face causing
injuries and he has also lost two teeth in the attack.
The petitioner has also pelted stones towards the
residence of the defacto complainant and broken the
window glasses. Thereby, he committed the aforesaid
offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
BAIL APPL. NO. 6247 OF 2021
as well the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that in fact, the defacto complainant has
fell down from his motorcycle as he was under the
influence of alcohol and thus he sustained injuries.
This petitioner has nothing to do with the injuries
sustained by him. It is further submitted that he is
totally innocent of the allegation levelled against
him, but he has been falsely implicated in the case
for no reason and hence this application.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
opposed the application as the defacto complainant has
sustained grievous injuries in the attack by this
petitioner.
6. The wound certificate produced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner as Annexure-A2 would show
that he was rushed to the hospital for treatment
immediately after the incident. In the wound
certificate, the cause of injuries appears to have
been stated by the injured to the doctor; which shows
that he was attacked by one Musthafa under the
BAIL APPL. NO. 6247 OF 2021
influence of alcohol. Musthafa is none other than
this petitioner.
7. It could be revealed from the records that
the injured had sustained serious injuries in the
attack by this petitioner. The attack was at a public
place, while the defacto complainant was riding his
motorcycle. It is not revealed from the records that
the defacto complainant was under the influence of
alcohol as submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, on the other hand the petitioner was
intoxicated.
On going through the records, I could find a
strong prima facie case against this petitioner.
Having regard to the nature of accusation levelled
against this petitioner as well other facts and
circumstances involved in this case, I do not think
that this is a fit and appropriate case in which the
discretion of the court can be exercised as prayed
for. Only in exceptional cases the power under Section
438 Cr.P.C can be exercised. This is not a case coming
under the said category. Hence, he is not entitled to
BAIL APPL. NO. 6247 OF 2021
get pre-arrest bail as prayed for by the petitioner.
Accordingly, this bail application stands
dismissed. The petitioner could very well surrender
before the investigating officer and co-operate with
the investigation of the case.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V.
JUDGE
SMA
