IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1521 of 2008()
1. MUHAMMED RAFI..P,S/O.HYDROSE MUSLIAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :02/06/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No. 1521 of 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. According to learned counsel for petitioner, he stands
implicated in a crime registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326
and 149 of Indian Penal Code. The crime was registered as early as
on 23.2.2008, on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Alavikutty
before the police stating that five identifiable persons attacked him
by using iron rods, in front of a shop at about 5.30 PM on
23.2.2008. Names of none of the accused were mentioned in the
first information statement.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that
petitioner is falsely implicated in the crime. There is no basis for
arraying him as accused in this case, except an alleged suspicion
expressed by the defacto complainant. But, even that suspicion is
baseless, since the case diary does not reveal that accused are
connected with the crime, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that
this petition was filed as early as on 4.3.2008 and several
adjournments were sought for by the learned Public Prosecutor and
BA.1521/08 2
every time this Court wanted the learned Public Prosecutor to
ascertain on which averments the petitioner is included as an
accused in the crime. In the first information statement it is stated
that the petitioner had threatened the defacto complainant with
dire consequence, while there was some altercation between the
two and this occurred prior to the incident.
4. Though the above details were stated by the defacto
complainant in the first information statement, nothing seems to
have occurred thereafter. When repeatedly this Court asked
learned Public Prosecutor whether the accused 2 to 6 (who
surrendered and arrested) were questioned and if so, on which date
they were questioned etc., learned learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that they were questioned after 18.3.2008. Specific date
could not be stated by him.
5. It is relevant to note that this Court had passed the
following order on 7.4.2008, i.e., much after the arrest of accused 2
to 6:
“The learned P.P prays for time to take further
instructions. The learned P.P must explain to the
court the basis on which averments are included in
the report to array accused 2 to 6 as accused.”
Later on 9.4.2008 also it is observed by this Court as follows:
BA.1521/08 3
“Learned P.P prays for time to take further
instruction. The Investigating Officer has not been
able to report before the learned Prosecutor for
discussions. In these circumstances he prays for
some further time.”
6. Even today, learned Public Prosecutor was not able to say
even the date on which accused 2 to 6 allegedly implicated the
petitioner in the crime. Learned Public Prosecutor made a general
statement without pointing out any specific material from the case
diary that the petitioner is the king pin behind the crime and
according to accused 2 to 6, he is the person who had arranged
them. In the above circumstances, I think, a roving enquiry is made
in an attempt to implicate the petitioner as accused. If at all
petitioner is an actual culprit, it is high time that sufficient
materials are collected. There was sufficient opportunity to get the
details, but till now nothing specific could be stated by the
respondent against petitioner.
7. Hence, this Court is constrained to pass an order of
anticipatory bail and the following order is passed:
Petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest
on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on
BA.1521/08 4
condition that he will co-operate with the investigation and make
himself available for interrogation.
This petition is allowed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.