IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 4726 of 2007()
1. A.B.MAHIN, S/O. ABDULLA,
... Petitioner
2. A.B.RAFEEK,S/O.A.B. ABDUL RAHIMAN HAJI,
3. A.B.IQBAL,S/O. A.B.KUNHAMU,
4. SAMEER @ JAMMU @,S/O.TIPU AHMED,
5. MOTTA ABDULLA,S/O.MOHAMMED,
6. ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O,. ABDULLA,
7. A.B.KALAM,S/O.A.B.KUNHAMU,
8. S.K.ABDULLA,S/O. MOHAMMED KUNHI,
9. SHERIEF, S/O. KAMARAJ ABDUL RAHIMAN HAJI
10. RAHIM,.S/O. ABOOBACKER,
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :06/08/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.4726 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of August 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1
to 10. It is alleged that they have committed offences punishable
inter alia under Sections 448 and 326 read with 149 I.P.C. All
the ten petitioners are named in the F.I.R. On account of
political animosity, the accused persons allegedly went to the
house of the de facto complainant armed with dangerous
weapons. He was called and when he came out of his house, he
was allegedly attacked. He has suffered a grievous hurt –
fracture of the nasal bone. Investigation is in progress. The
petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the de facto complainant belongs to C.P.M and the petitioners
belong to I.U.M.L. On account of political animosity, such wild
allegations are being raised against the petitioners. Crime,
when registered, did not include the offence under Section 326
I.P.C. But in the course of the investigation, the allegation was
included. The learned counsel for the petitioners further
B.A.No.4726/07 2
submits that in Annexure 1 report submitted by the Medical
Officer to the police, it is mentioned that the assault was by six
persons and they were not named. There is no reference to any
fracture also in such intimation issued by the Doctor to the
police, it is submitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioners are innocent and they deserve to be
saved from the trauma of arrest and detention. Anticipatory bail
may be granted to the petitioners, urges the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
3. The application is opposed by the learned Public
Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the
F.I statement, allegations have been narrated in detail specifying
the accused persons. That there was political animosity is not
disputed and that allegedly is the cause/motive for the incident.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am of the
opinion that there is merit in the opposition by the learned
Public Prosecutor. I find no features in this case which would
justify invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
This is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the
learned Magistrate or the investigating officer and seek regular
B.A.No.4726/07 3
bail in the normal and ordinary course. The fact that the
fracture of nasal bond is not mentioned in the earliest medical
documents prepared at the casualty or the fact that the accused
persons have not been named to the Doctor do not at all
persuade me to concede any benefit or advantage to the
petitioners inasmuch fracture of the nasal bone is now confirmed
and all the petitioners are named in the F.I.R itself.
3. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to
say, if the petitioners surrender before the investigating officer
or the learned Magistrate and apply for bail, after giving
sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case,
the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders
on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
B.A.No.4726/07 4
B.A.No.4726/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007