Kerala High Court
Ameer Saleem vs State Of Kerala on 20 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 8276 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 869/2022 OF DISTRICT COURT
& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
1 AMEER SALEEM
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O SALEEM,
MEKKOTH PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,
RAJEEV GANDHI COLONY, POLINJAPALAM,
ADIMALY P.O, MANNAMKANDAM,IDUKKI DISTRICT
PIN - 685561
2 SALEEM.M.K
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O KHADER KOCHUMUHAMMED, MEKKOTH PUTHENPURACKAL
HOUSE,
RAJEEV GANDHI COLONY, POLINJAPALAM,
ADIMALY P.O, MANNAMKANDAM,IDUKKI DISTRICT
PIN - 685561
BY ADVS.
N.K.SHYJU
GIREESH PANKAJAKSHAN
ANANYA M.
VISHNU MOHAN
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
PP:SMT.Seetha S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.8276 of 2022 :2:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
B.A. No.8276 of 2022
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2022
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime
No.746/2022 of Idukki Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 506, 326, 427, 294(b) and 323
r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution allegation is that, on 06.09.2022, at 9.30
pm, while the father and brother of the defacto complainant was
travelling on a scooter, the 1 st petitioner attacked with a sickle on
the helmet of the brother of the defacto complainant. Then he fell
down on the road and the 1st petitioner abused the defacto
complainant who was sitting in an Autorikhaw and damaged the
rear view mirror of the autorikshaw. It is further alleged that the 1 st
petitioner hit on his knee by the handle of the sickle and thereby
sustained fracture on the patella. The 2 nd petitioner slapped on the
neck of the defacto complainant and due to the act of the petitioner
the defacto complainant lost control over the autorikshaw and
thereby hit on a stay line and sustained a damage to the tune of
Rs. 10,000/-.
4 .The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the above said crime.
The case of petitioners is that the defacto complainant and the
petitioners are close relatives. The 2nd petitioner is the father of the
1st petitioner. On the alleged date of incident at 8.30 pm, the
defacto complainant, his brother Anwar and his father brutally
assaulted the petitioners at Pallicity, Nelippuzha public Road. The
assailants attacked the 1st petitioner with a helmet and his two
teeth were broken in the assault. When the 2 nd petitioner
intervened, he was also attacked and he sustained fracture on his
face. Immediately after the incident, the petitioners were
hospitalized at Idukki District Hospital and a case was registered
against three accused as Crime No.736/2022 of Idukki Police
Station for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 326
and 427 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Hearing about the registration of
the Crime, the wife of the aforesaid Anwar lodged a complaint
before the police on 11.09.2022, and managed to register a case
against the petitioners as Crime No.740/2022 for the offences
punishable u/s 452, 294(b), 323 and 354 IPC. On 13.09.2022, after
seven days of the alleged incident, the defacto complainant lodged
this false complaint against the petitioners and registered this case
against them. This case is foisted against the petitioners only as a
counter blast for the offences committed by the defacto
complainant. It is further submitted by the petitioners that they
sustained serious injuries in the attack by the defacto complainant.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for
bail mainly contending that the defacto complainant sustained
injuries in the alleged incident and further that the petitioners have
criminal antecedents.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and considering the nature of the allegations, I am of the opinion
that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be required
for the purpose of investigation and only a limited custody be
granted for the same. Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the
petitioners subject to stringent conditions. In the result, this
application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners shall
surrender before the investigating officer on 26.12.2022, at 11
a.m, and subject themselves for interrogation on that day and on
any other day/days as directed by the investigating officer. The
petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. In the event of
arrest in Crime No.746/2022 of Idukki Police Station, they shall be
produced before the jurisdictional Court on the very same day and
shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with
two solvent sureties each for the like-sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional court ;
(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the
investigating officer in Crime No.746/2022 of Idukki
Police Station, , on every Saturday, at 11 am, until the
filing of the final report;
(iii) Petitioners shall appear before the investigating
officer in Crime No.746/2022 of Idukki Police
Station,as and when summoned to do so;
(iv) The petitioners shall not attempt to contact the
victim or the defacto complainant or interfere with
the investigation or to influence or intimidate any
witness in Crime No.746/2022 of Idukki Police
Station,;
(v) The petitioners shall not involve in any other
crime while on bail.
If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the
investigating officer in Crime No.746/2022 of Idukki Police Station,
may file an application before the jurisdictional Court, for
cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that it is within the power of the police to
investigate the matter and if necessary to effect recoveries on the
information if any given by any of the petitioners, even when the
petitioners are on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in
Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State(NCT of Delhi) and
another(2020(1)KHC 663).
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sm/
