Kerala High Court
Abdul Rahiman @ Rahim @ Rahim Miyapadavu vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
BAIL APPL. NO. 7005 OF 2024
1
2024:KER:69428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 7005 OF 2024
CRIME NO.106/2023 OF Manjeswar Police Station, Kasargod
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.424 OF 2024 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III, KASARAGOD /
III ADDITIONAL MACT, KASARAGODE
PETITIONER/S:
ABDUL RAHIMAN @ RAHIM @ RAHIM MIYAPADAVU,
AGED 25 YEARS
SON OF ABOOBACKAR, ADUKATHGURI HOUSE, MIYAPADAVU,
MEENJA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671323
BY ADVS.
C.C.ANOOP
R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671323
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT PUSHPALATHA M K
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 7005 OF 2024
2
2024:KER:69428
C.S.DIAS,J
--------------------------------------------
Bail Application No.7005 of 2024
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2024
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short,
'BNSS'), by the first accused in Crime No.106/2023 of the
Manjeswar Police Station, Kasargod, which is registered
against six accused persons for allegedly committing the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 353
r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC')
and Section 3 r/w Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. The
petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody
on 19.07.2023.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on
22.02.2023, at around 19.10 hours, the accused, in
prosecution of their common intention, had formed an
unlawful assembly with dangerous weapons, including an
unlicensed pistol, and they attempted to murder the
BAIL APPL. NO. 7005 OF 2024
2024:KER:69428
defacto complainant/a police official and his party. The
accused prevented the defacto complainant and his party
from discharging their official duties. Thus, the accused
have committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri.C.C.Anoop, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Pushpalatha M.K., the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations leveled
against him. There is no material to substantiate that the
petitioner has committed the above offences. The
Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section
307 of IPC and the provisions of the Arms Act to see that
the petitioner is incarcerated. The petitioner has been in
judicial custody for the last two months, the investigation
in the case is complete and recovery has been effected.
Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary.
Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
BAIL APPL. NO. 7005 OF 2024
2024:KER:69428
5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed
the application. She submitted that petitioner is an
inveterate criminal since he is involved in 17 other serious
crimes of various police stations. The petitioner had used
an unlicensed pistol and attempted to murder the defacto
complainant while he was discharging his official duties.
If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every
likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering
with the evidence and also flee from justice. Therefore, the
application may be dismissed.
6. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner
along with the other accused had wrongfully restrained the
defacto complainant and attempted to murder him with an
unlicensed pistol. Indisputably, the petitioner is an accused
in Crime Nos.289/2019, 291/2019, 47/2020, 142/2021,
145/2021, 147/2021, 196/2021, 241/2022, 270/2022,
24/2022, 29/2022, 107/2023, 632/2023, 502/2023 and
110/2023 registered by various police stations for
BAIL APPL. NO. 7005 OF 2024
2024:KER:69428
committing serious offences under the IPC, the Arms Act
and also under the NDPS Act.
7. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496], the Honourable Supreme
Court has laid down the broad parameters for Courts while
dealing with bail applications by holding as follows :-
"9.xxx xxx xxx However, it is equally incumbent upon the
High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously
and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid
down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It
is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors
to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail
are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed the
offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii)
severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv)
danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on
bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing
of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being
thwarted by grant of bail".
8. Likewise, in Gurucharan Singh Ors. v. State
(Delhi Administration) [(1978) 1 SCC 118], the
Honourable Supreme Court has held that while considering
an application of bail, it is necessary to consider the nature
and seriousness of the offence, the character of the
evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
BAIL APPL. NO. 7005 OF 2024
2024:KER:69428
a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not
being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
public or the State, and similar factors which may be
relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. It is also worth recollecting the observations
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ash Mohammad
v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr [(2012) 9 SCC
446] in the following lines :-
"30. We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared
to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an
impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the
court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy.
There should have been proper analysis of the criminal
antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is
subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The
question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be
enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing
conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that
period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the
totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are
also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of
collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept
in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had
to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social
concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over
lifting the restriction on liberty of the accused."
BAIL APPL. NO. 7005 OF 2024
2024:KER:69428
10. The law has thus crystalised that while deciding
an application for bail under Section 439, the courts are
obliged to look into the nature, gravity and seriousness of
the crime, the potential severity of the punishment that is
likely to be imposed, the character, behaviour and standing
of the accused, the prosecution's legitimate apprehension
regarding the tampering of evidence, the flight risk that is
involved and whether releasing the accused on bail would
have a deleterious impact on the society.
After bestowing my anxious consideration to the
facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the
materials placed on record and on comprehending the
nature, seriousness and gravity of the accusations leveled
against the petitioner, that there are prima facie materials
to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the crime,
that too, the petitioner has allegedly attempted to murder a
public servant and that the petitioner is a habitual offender,
I am not convinced or satisfied that the petitioner is
entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage as it would be a
BAIL APPL. NO. 7005 OF 2024
2024:KER:69428
deleterious impact on the society. Hence, the application is
meritless and only to be dismissed.
Resultantly, the application is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
rkc/11.09.24
BAIL APPL. NO. 7005 OF 2024
2024:KER:69428
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7005/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO.106/2023 OF MANJESHWAR
POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRIMINAL M.P
NO.3982/2024 IN SC. NO.424/2024 IN CRIME
NO.106/2023 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION,
PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-III, KASARAGOD
