IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 7150 of 2007()
1. ABOOBACKER, S/O. ABDULLA,
... Petitioner
2. SAINUDDIN, S/O. ALI,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/11/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 7150 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are
accused 1 and 2 in a crime registered alleging offences
punishable, inter alia, under Sections 324 and 308 r/w. 149 I.P.C.
There is a dispute between two groups relating to the
administration of a Mosque. The precise dispute is about the
appointment of a Musaliar. On account of this animosity the
petitioners, along with others, were allegedly members of an
unlawful assembly, tho attacked the victim and caused injuries on
him. The alleged occurrence took place on 1.11.2007. Crime
was registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners
apprehend imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are absolutely innocent. They were not aggressors,
but were victims of aggression. A counter case has also been
registered. Wooden reapers are the weapons allegedly used by
B.A.No. 7150 of 2007
2
the petitioners. In the counter case, the defacto complainant who has
been arrayed as accused, as also others used stones to commit the
offence. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
allegation under Section 308 I.P.C. only reveals the prejudice and bias
of the Investigating Officer. There is no reason to include Section 308
I.P.C. That has been included only to ensure maximum vexation and
harassment to the petitioners. It is prayed that directions under Section
438 Cr.P.C. may be issued in favour of the petitioners.
3. The learned Prosecutor has read to me the nature of injuries
described in the wound certificate. He concedes that there is a counter
case. The learned Prosecutor does not oppose the application, but only
submits that appropriate conditions may be imposed in the interest of a
fair, efficient and expeditious investigation.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am persuaded to
agree that directions under section 438 Cr.P.C. can be issued in favour
of the petitioners.
5. In the result:
(1) This application is allowed.
B.A.No. 7150 of 2007
3
(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438
Cr.P.C.
(a) The petitioners shall surrender before the learned Magistrate
on 6.12.2007 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the
petitioners on regular bail on condition that they execute bonds
for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned
Magistrate.
(b) The petitioners shall make themselves available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. on 7.12.07 and 8.12.2007. During this period, the investigators
shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioners in custody and take all
necessary steps in connection with the investigation. Thereafter they
shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and
Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of one month and
subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in
writing to do so.
B.A.No. 7150 of 2007
4
(c) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate
as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 6.12.07
and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioners and
deal with them in accordance with law.
(d) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on
6.12.2007 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released on
bail on their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- each without any surety
undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 6.12.2007.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm