High Court Kerala High Court

Yoonus vs State Of Kerala To Be Rep.By Public on 17 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Yoonus vs State Of Kerala To Be Rep.By Public on 17 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7026 of 2008()


1. YOONUS, AGED 23, S/O MUSTHAFA,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. PUTHALATH USMAN, AGED 34, S/O.ALI,
3. SADIQUE, AGED 21, S/O.ALBDULLA,
4. ALI KADATHARA, AGED 37, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY
5. MUJEEB, AGED 27, S/O ALI, NARIKKODE.PO,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP.BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

2. S.H.O, THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :17/11/2008

 O R D E R
                                  K. HEMA, J.
                  ---------------------------------------------------
                     Bail Appl.No. 7026 of 2008
                  ---------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008.

                                  ORDER

Petition for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147,

148, 324, 341, 308 read with Section 149 of IPC. According to

prosecution, petitioners, who are accused nos. 1 to 5, formed into

an unlawful assembly and armed with weapons like iron block

etc. assaulted de facto complainant and another due to political

animosity.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that

petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. Though about 25

persons allegedly assaulted de facto complainant with weapons, he

has not sustained any serious injury. Offence under Section 308 IPC is

included only with a view to harass petitioners. However, if petitioners

are arrested on accusation of offence under Section 308 of IPC, it will

cause irreparable injury and loss, it is submitted.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not a fit

case to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners. However, he conceded

that injuries sustained by de facto complainant and another are not

[B.A.No.7026/08] 2

serious in nature. It is also submitted that the only non-bailable

offence is under Section 308 of IPC.

5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature

of allegations made it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail to

petitioners, at this stage. However, it is made clear that for the

purpose of bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C., offence under Section 308

IPC will be treated by police and the court as one under Section 324

IPC. It is made clear that it is only for the purpose of bail that this

observation is made.

Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate court

concerned or the investigating officer without any

delay. Whether they surrender or not police is at

liberty to arrest petitioners and proceed in accordance

with law.

With this direction and observation, this petition is dismissed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

Krs.