IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2955 of 2010()
1. YUNAS,S/O.AMMAD,SHAPPULLAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. JALEEL,S/O.AMMAD,KAKKUZHI HOUSE,
3. SAJEER,S/O.ABDUL KADAR,
4. SAMEER,S/O.MOIDI,PARAMMAL HOUSE,
5. MUJEEB,S/O.BEERAN,PAREKKATTIL HOUSE.
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :21/05/2010
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J
----------------------
B.A.No. 2955 OF 2010
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010
O R D E R
This is a petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offeces are under sections.143,144,145,147,
148, 383,353,308 r/w 149 IPC. According to prosecution, on
30.4.2010 at about 8.30 pm, petitioners along with other accused
formed into an unlawful assembly, destroyed the posters and
banners belonging to rival political party and when police party
reached the spot, Sub Inspector asked the persons to disburse,
but petitioners and others not only did not disburse, but pelted
stones at the police party and vehicle. A stone hit against ASI,
who was in the police party.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 4th
accused, who is the third petitioner herein was already granted
bail, after his arrest. Petitioners are members of Muslim League
and they have not committed offences as alleged. Their names
are implicated only by political influence. It is submitted that Sub
Inspector was not even present in the scene.
B.A. No.2955/10 2
4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor
submits that a clash occurred between workers of two rival
political parties and the police had to intervene but without
heeding to the Sub Inspector’s direction to disburse, petitioners
pelted stones along with others at the police party. This is not a
fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is not correct to say that Sub
Inspector was present at the scene, it is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides, I find that there is a bare denial of
involvement of the petitioners in the offence, but there is nothing
on record to support or probabalise such plea of innocence.
Considering the nature of allegations made, I find that this is not a
fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
This petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Sou.