Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945 SC 555/2003 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL FOR MARADU CASES) KOZHIKODE PETITIONER/ PETITIONER NO.21/ ACCUSED : FAROOK, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, KINATINGALAKATH VEED, MARAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 018 BY ADVS. M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER E.A.HARIS MUHAMMED YASIL RESPONDENT/ STATE AND COMPLAINANT : STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031 SRI. NOUSHAD K.A., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
Crl.M.C.No.1146 of 2024 Dated this the 29th day of February, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner is one of the accused in S.C.No.555 of 2003 and
S.C.No.701 of 2023 and S.C.No.446 of 2003 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode (Maradu Cases). The trial in those cases concluded and petitioner was convicted. His appeal before this Court was dismissed and a criminal appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court which is pending consideration as Crl.A.No.2540 of 2014. While so, the Supreme Court directed the Sessions Court to release the petitioner on bail after
imposing appropriate conditions. One of the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge was that petitioner shall not enter into the limits of Maradu Police Station. Aggrieved by the said condition, petitioner filed an application to lift the same. However by the impugned order dated 13.09.2023, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application.
2. I have heard Sri.Ahammad Saheer M.A., the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. It is noticed from the impugned order that the report of the Station House Officer of Maradu Police Station was relied upon by the
learned Sessions Judge to refuse to lift the said condition. The report stated that if the petitioner is permitted to enter the jurisdiction of Maradu Police Station, it will create unrest and will adversely affect the peace and tranquility now prevailing in the said area.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has made available a copy of the
present report submitted by the Detective Inspector of Crime Branch, Kozhikode. It is stated therein that if the accused is permitted to enter into the limits of Maradu Police Station, it can spur the enmity between the Hindu and Muslim communities in Maradu. It is also mentioned that the community of the victims in the above cases are keeping a close watch on the convicted accused to ensure that they do not enter within the limits of the police station and any provocation can lead to communal
issues once again at Maradu.
5. On a consideration of the report submitted by the Detective
Inspector and bearing in mind the circumstances that led to the registration of the crime and even constitution of a Special Court for trying cases relating to the incident that occurred at Maradu, I am of the view that a limited condition of restraining entry into the limits of Maradu Police Station is not too onerous a condition nor is it required to be lifted.
Therefore, the impugned order is not perverse and I find no reason to interfere with the same. The Crl.M.C.is dismissed. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1146/2024 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES : Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2015 IN CMP NO.29/2015 ON THE FILES Annexure 2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2023 IN CMP NO.31/2022 ON THE FILES