Zeenath Usman vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 9725 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
   WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA, 1945
                     BAIL APPL. NO. 7618 OF 2023
              Crime No.623/2023 of Perumbavoor Police Station

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMC 1627/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT &
                       SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
     1     ZEENATH USMAN,AGED 48 YEARS,W/O USMAN E.S. EARETHAN
           HOUSE, ALLAPRA P.O., KANDANTHARA, PERUMBAVOOR,
           ERNAKULAM., PIN - 683556

    2       FAZIL,AGED 28 YEARS,S/O ISMAIL, NELLAKUZHI HOUSE,
            NELLIKUZHI P.O., CHIRAPPADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691

    3       SULFIKKER ALI E.U,AGED 28 YEARS,S/O USMAN, EARETHAN
            HOUSE, ALLAPRA P.O., KANDANTHARA, PERUMBAVOOR,
            ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556

            BY ADV MAITHEEN M.PAREETH


RESPONDENT/S:
     1     STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH
           COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

    2       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION,
            PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683542


OTHER PRESENT:
           SRI. NOUSHAD K A (SR PP)


     THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION    HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
13.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A. No.7618/2023                         -2-

                                     ORDER

The petitioners are accused in Crime No.623/2023 of Perumbavoor Police

Station, Ernakulam District alleging commission of offence under Sections 143, 144,

147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 294 (b) and 507 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that owing to some disputes of

civil nature between the paternal uncle of the de facto complainant and the accused

persons, the accused persons had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on

28-05-2023 at about 9.30 p.m and had attacked the paternal uncle of the de facto

complainant using helmet and iron rods as a result of which he sustained serious

injuries and thereby they committed the offences alleged against them

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would refer to the

first information statement of the de facto complainant. It is submitted that even

according to the first information statement the petitioners were not involved in the

crime. It is submitted that going by the first information statement some of the

other accused in the case have attacked the paternal uncle of the de facto

complainant using helmet and iron rods and at that time the petitioners in this bail

application (arrayed as accused 4, 6 and 7) were not even present. It is submitted

that the allegation against the petitioners is that thereafter the paternal uncle of the

de facto complainant was dragged into the compound of the 1 st accused and there

the petitioners also attacked the paternal uncle of the de facto complainant. It is

submitted that even according to the first information statement the paternal uncle

of the de facto complainant escaped from the clutches of the assailants and jumped

over the compound wall and reached the house of the de facto complainant. It is

submitted that in such circumstances it cannot be believed that the uncle of the de

facto complainant had been subjected to such brutal attack as is alleged by the

prosecution. It is also submitted that the 1st petitioner is a lady and in the facts and

circumstances of the case custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary.

It is submitted that actually the paternal uncle of the de facto complainant

tresspassed into the house of the 1 st petitioner and had abused the 1 st petitioner in

this case and others as a result of which Annexure-A1 first information report has

been registered against the de facto complainant. It is submitted the Annexure-A1

FIR was registered on 30-05-2023 at 8.45 p.m while the FIR which led to

registration of Crime No.755/2023 was registered on the same say at 5.36 p.m It is

submitted that the 1st petitioner also suffered a fracture owing to the attack by the

de facto complainant and others.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor refers to the facts and circumstances of

the case and submits that the petitioners are clearly not entitled to anticipatory bail.

It is submitted that there are clear allegations in the first information statement that

each of the petitioners had clear role in attacking the uncle of the de facto

complainant. It is submitted that the injuries suffered by the uncle of the de facto

complainant are serious. It is pointed out that the uncle of the de facto complainant

had fracture to his 9th rib (on the right side) and a fracture on his left fibula apart

from other injuries. It is submitted that in such circumstances the petitioners are

clearly not entitled to anticipatory bail. It is submitted that Annexure-A1 FIR has

been registered at the instance of the 1 st petitioner alleging commission of offence

under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the

learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that the 1 st petitioner alone can be

granted anticipatory bail that too taking into consideration of the fact that she is a

lady. There are clear allegations against the petitioners in the first information

statement given by the de facto complainant. The injuries suffered by the uncle of

the de facto complainant also seen to corroborate the allegations in the first

information statement. The dispute arises out of a civil dispute between uncle of the

de facto complainant and some others. No other reason is stated for the attack by

the petitioners and others on the uncle of the de facto complainant. Taking these

facts cumulatively into consideration and taking note of specific allegations made in

the first information statement, I am of the view that the petitioners 2 and 3 are not

entitled to anticipatory bail. Therefore this bail application will stand allowed in so

far as it relates to the 1st petitioner and it will stand dismissed in so far as it relates

to petitioners 2 and 3. The 1st petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of her

arrest in connection with Crime No.623/2023 of Perumbavoor Police Station,

Ernakulam subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The 1st petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty

thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the

satisfaction of the arresting officer;

(ii) The 1st petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime

No.623/2023 of Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam at 11 a.m on 20-09-

2023 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so;

(iii) The 1st petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation,

influence or intimidate the de facto complaint or any witness in Crime

No.623/2023 of Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam;

(iv) The 1st petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in

Crime No.623/2023 of Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam may file an

application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE AMG

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7618/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 623/ 2023 DATED 30.05.2023 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2023 PASSED IN CRL.M.C. NO. 1627 /2023 OF THE SESSIONS COURT ERNAKULAM