Kerala High Court
Raheem vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 5772 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 449/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT&
SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM
CRIME NO.309 OF 2021 OF TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.3 TO 6, 8 & 9 :-
1 RAHEEM
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.HUSSAIN, PALLIKKATTIL HOUSE,
OTTUMPURAM, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 302.
2 NOUFAL
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.JABBAR, ANGADIKADAVATH HOUSE,
OTTUMPURAM, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 302.
3 FAROOQ
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.RASACK, PALLIMMANTE PURAKKAL HOUSE,
OTTUMPURAM, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 302.
4 ABDUSSAMAD
AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.RASACK, PALLIMMANTE PURAKKAL HOUSE,
OTTUMPURAM, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 302.
5 RASHID
AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, POOZHIKKAL HOUSE,
OTTUMPURAM, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 302.
6 FIRJAS
AGED 17 YEARS, S/O.FAISAL, PAREEKUTTINTE PURAKKAL
HOUSE, OTTUMPURAM, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
676 302.
BY ADV K.P.SUDHEER
RESPONDENT/STATE :-
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5772 OF 2021
2
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
TANUR POLICE STATION, TANUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 302.
SMT.SREEJA.V- SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 5772 OF 2021
3
ORDER
Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime
No.309 of 2021 of Tanur Police Station registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148, 341, 323, 324, 506 and 308 r/w Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners/accused
Nos.3, 4 , 5, 6, 8 and 9 have filed this
application.
2. The prosecution case is that due to political
rivalry on 17.06.2021 these petitioners along with
the other accused have formed themselves into an
unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon attacked
the defacto complainant and his brothers with deadly
weapons such as iron pipe, knife, stump etc and
caused severe injuries. A blow aimed to the head of
the defacto complainant was somehow or other evaded
by him. Had it been otherwise, it would have caused
his death.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners as well the learned Public Prosecutor.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5772 OF 2021
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the allegations levelled against them
are absolutely false and baseless. In fact, the
defacto complainant and his brothers have attacked
the petitioners and they sustained grievous injuries
and had to seek medical aid from the Government
Hospital, immediately after the attack. Though
intimation was given from the hospital and no case
was registered against them. Thereafter, the defacto
complainant under his influence managed to register
this case against the accused. Accused Nos.2 to 7
were arrested by the police and they were granted
regular bail, after few days of custody. But now the
petitioners apprehend arrest without any valid
reason. Even after sustaining injuries from the
defacto complainant, they are compelled to approach
this court.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted
that actually the investigation of the case is only
in progress. The material so far collected by the
investigating agency would reveal that accused
BAIL APPL. NO. 5772 OF 2021
Nos.4, 6 and 8 were not having any weapon and no
specific overt act has been alleged against them by
the defacto complainant. But specific overt act is
alleged against Accused Nos.3, 5 and 9 and so
granting of pre-arrest bail in their favour is
opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. Though the learned counsel for the
petitioners have submitted that these petitioners
have sustained injuries in the attack by the defacto
complainant and his brothers, the wound certificates
of accused Nos.4 to 6 could reveal that they have
sustained only minor injuries on the very same day
in a attack by two or three person. So also no crime
has been registered against the defacto complainant
and others for having attacked the petitioners at
the relevant time at the place of occurrence.
Considering the entire facts involved in
this case as well the statement of the defacto
complainant, who sustained injuries along with his
brothers a strong case is revealed against accused
Nos.3, 5 and 9. But the other accused (accused
BAIL APPL. NO. 5772 OF 2021
Nos.4, 6 and 8) have no active participation in
causing injuries to the defacto complainant and his
brothers. Therefore, I am inclined to grant pre-
arrest bail to the petitioners Nos. 2(A4), 4 (A6) as
well 5 (A8) subject to the following conditions :-
(i)The petitioners (2, 4 and 5) shall be
released on bail on executing a bond for a sum
of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)
each with two solvent sureties for the like sum
each to the satisfaction of the investigating
officer at the event of their arrest.
(ii)They shall appear before the Investigating
Officer for interrogation as and when required
by him, in writing.
(iii)They shall co-operate with the
investigation and trial of the case.
(iv) They 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 from disclosing such
facts to the court or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence.
(v) They shall not commit any offence while on
bail.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5772 OF 2021
In case of violation of any of the above
conditions, the learned Magistrate/Judge is
empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with
the law.
The application with respect to the
petitioners Nos.1(A3), 3(A5) and 6(A9) shall stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V.
JUDGE
SMA
