Kerala High Court
Shebin V A vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 16TH POUSHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 10201 OF 2022
CRIME NO.496/2022 OF MARAD POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1V& 2:
1 SHEBIN V A
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O ASHARAF, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE
CHIRAMANANGAD P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680604
2 MUJEEB T A
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O T K ABDUL RAHIMAN, FATHIMA MANZIL,
ELANJIKKULAM, NADATHARA P.O, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680751
BY ADVS.
C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
T.K.DEVARAJAN
M.B.SOORI
ANCY THANKACHAN
NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN
HAARIS MOOSA
GOURI KAILASH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MARADU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE CITY, PIN - 682304
BY ADV
SRI.M.C.ASHI - PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA No.10201 of 2022
.. 2 ..
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
====================
B.A. No.10201 of 2022
====================
Dated this the 06th day of January, 2023
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime
No.496/2022 of Maradu Police Station, Kozhikode alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 353, 294 (b),
324, 506 and Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution allegation is that, on 07.12.2022 at
about 3.45 pm, in Mathottam Vanashree Complex Hall, the
disciplinary proceedings against the 1st petitioner were
progressing in which the defacto complainant is appointed as
the enquiry officer. It is alleged that, during the enquiry, the 1 st
and the 2nd petitioners threatened and insulted the prosecution
witness and it was questioned by the petitioners. In retaliation,
threatened the defacto complainant and used obscene words to
him. It is further alleged that the petitioners caused obstruction
to the defacto complainant in discharging his official duty and
BA No.10201 of 2022
.. 3 ..
further alleged that the 1st petitioner used obscene words on the
defacto complainant and threatened him. It is alleged that the
presenting officer suffered injuries when the 2nd petitioner threw
a chair at him, and hit him as he tried to avoid the chair and
thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
in 2018, an enquiry proceedings was initiated against the 1 st
petitioner and the 2nd petitioner was appointed as an officer to
assist in the enquiry, as per rules. The enquiry officer did not
follow the prescribed procedure for conducting the disciplinary
proceedings and that was objected to by the petitioner herein.
Thereafter the defacto complainant started behaving in a rude
manner and insulted the petitioners. When certain questions
were posed to the witness ,one N.T.Sajan, he did not give proper
reply to the said questions and the enquiry officer shouted at the
petitioners and asked the petitioners to leave the room. The
defacto complainant attacked the 2nd petitioner and punched on
his face. Thereupon a complaint was preferred by the 1 st
petitioner and a crime was registered against the defacto
complainant as Crime No.497/2022 of Maradu Police Station,
Kozhikode.
BA No.10201 of 2022
.. 4 ..
5. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions
submitted that when the 2nd petitioner threatened the witness
who came to gave evidence as part of the enquiry the same was
objected by the enquiry officer and thereupon the enquiry officer
was attacked by the petitioners.
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 may not be required for the
purpose of the investigation and only a limited custody be
granted for the same. In the result, this application is allowed.
It is directed that the petitioners shall surrender before the
investigating officer on 12.01.2023, 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 of
the petitioners in Crime No.496/2022 of Maradu Police Station,
Kozhikode, he 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
BA No.10201 of 2022
.. 5 ..
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.496/2022 of
Maradu Police Station, Kozhikode, on every
Saturday, at 11 am, until the filing of the final
report;
(iii) Petitioners shall appear before the
investigating officer in Crime No.496/2022 of
Maradu Police Station, Kozhikode 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.496/2022 of Maradu
Police Station, Kozhikode;
(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.496/2022 of Maradu Police
Station, Kozhikode may file an application before the
BA No.10201 of 2022
.. 6 ..
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
ded/06.01.2023
