Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY,THE24H DAY OF JUNE20143RD ASHADHA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 4167 of 2014 (A) ------------------------------------------ [CRIME NO. 625/2014 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT] ........... APPLICANTS/ACCUSED2TO6 --------------------------------------------- 1. ABDU SAMAD, AGED28YEARS, S/O.ENTHEEN MALAYIL, THERTHODUVIL HOUSE.
2. FASALUDHEEN.P, AGED31YEARS, S/O.ALAVI PATTUKARAN, MUSLIYARKANDI HOUSE.
3. MOHAMMED SHAFEEQ, AGED25YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, AKKARAKUNNATH HOUSE.
4. HABEEB RAHMAN, AGED20YEARS, S/O.KUNHI MOHAMMED, KUNDIL THODI HOUSE.
5. SHAREEF, AGED23YEARS, S/O.BEERAN HAJI, KUNDITHODI HOUSE. ALL ARE RESIDING AT THAVANOOR, FIRST MILE, MUTHUVALLOOR AMSOM & DESOM, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.P.VENUGOPAL, SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE KONDOTTY POLICE STATION- CRIME NO.625/2014). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2406-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J --------------------------------------- B.A.No.4167 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2014 ORDER
Petitioners apprehend arrest in Crime No.625 of 2014 of the Kondotty Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and have filed this application.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant have opposed the application. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the first petitioner is the second accused while the petitioners 4 and 5 are accused 6 and 3 respectively. There appears to be some difference in the name of the petitioners 2 and 3 given in the application and in the FIR. That has to be verified. It is also submitted that the first accused and the first petitioner used iron rod against the de facto complainant while some of the accused used stone. The stone is recovered but not the iron rod.
3. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant submits that the de facto complainant who is a B.Com student was returning after his viva, was dragged into a coconut garden and severely assaulted. He is undergoing treatment even now.
4. In the nature of allegations made against the first B.A.No.4167 of 2014 2 petitioner/second accused and the investigation required to be done, request for pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed.
5. So far as the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, it is yet to be ascertained whether they are the persons named in the FIR as accused.
6. Since the stone allegedly used by some of the accused is already recovered and the reason for assault is a previous altercation which arose from a dispute regarding a football match, I am inclined to think that the relief could be granted to petitioners 2 to 5 but subject to conditions and protecting the interest of the de facto complainant also. Application is disposed of as under: (I) Request of the first petitioner/second accused in Crime No.625 of 2014 of the Kondotty Police Station for pre- arrest bail is rejected. It is directed that in case he is arrested, after interrogation is over he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate as early as possible. (II) (i) Petitioners 2 to 5 shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.625 of 2014 of the Kondotty Police Station on 03.07.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation. (ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the B.A.No.4167 of 2014 3 petitioners 2 to 5 on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioners 2 to 5 shall comply. (iii) In case arrest of the petitioners 2 to 5 or any of them are/is recorded, they/he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate same day. (iv) On such production the arrested petitioners shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on their executing bond for 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each before the arresting officer and subject to the following conditions: (a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of any of the arrested persons. (b) The arrested petitioners shall deposit of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) each in a Nationalized/Scheduled Bank/Co-operative Society in their name initally for a period of two years (renewable as per order of the learned magistrate) and produce the FD receipts before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bond. (c) In case the case is decided against the arrested persons or any of them and they/he are/is made liable to pay compensation to the defacto complainat, such compensation to the extent possible could be realized from the amount in B.A.No.4167 of 2014 4 deposit. (d) The arrested persons shall report to the officer investigating the case on every alternate Saturday between 10.00 a.m and 12.00 p.m for a period of two months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. (e) The arrested persons shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation. (f) The arrested persons not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail. (g) The arrested persons shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses. (III) In case the arrested persons or any of them violate any of condition Nos.(d) to (g), it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC100. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. AS