IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4307 of 2008()
1. V.V. MUHAMMEDALI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :09/07/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 4307 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 148,
341, 323, 427 and 332 read with section 149 IPC and section 3
(2)(e) of the P.D.P.P. Act. According to the prosecution, on 21-6-
2008 at about 10.45 a.m. while the training class for teachers
under the S.S.A. Scheme was going on in the Government
School, Nadapuram, the petitioner and others formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly
weapons trespassed in to the class room where the training was
going on, raised slogans against the implementation of the
controversial text book in the VIIth Standard in the school and
assaulted two teachers and caused damage to the furniture in
the class room.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations made. He has
been falsely implicated in the crime only due to political rivalry.
BA 4307/08 -2-
The petitioner is shown as the 1st accused in the complaint filed
by the Project Coordinator who was coordinating the
programme. According to the petitioner, he is a prominent leader
of K.S.T.A., a teachers’ association affiliated to the C.P.I.(M)
which is now in the ruling front. It is pointed out that though the
Headmaster of the school was present, he did not make any
complaint and, according to the petitioner, the Headmaster
refused to implicate the petitioner at the request of the police
and hence the complaint was field by the defacto-complainant
who is on inimical terms with the petitioner because of political
reasons.
4. It is also submitted that the alleged incident took place
at 10-45 a.m. but the petitioner was working at M.I.M.H.S.S.
Perode, which is situated 5 k.m. away from the place of
occurrence. He was on duty on that day and a certificate issued
by the Principal of the School is produced as Annexure-A2.
5. The application is strongly opposed. The learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner’s name is specifically
stated in the First Information Statement and specific overt acts
are also attributed against him and as per the case diary, it
cannot be said that the petitioner is not involved in the crime at
BA 4307/08 -3-
all. In an offence of this nature, it is submitted, anticipatory bail
may not be granted.
6. On hearing both sides, and on perusing the
documents , I am of the opinion that in offence of this nature,
anticipatory bail can be refused only to persons who are actually
involved. As per Annexure-A2, it, prima facie, appears that the
petitioner was on duty in a school which is situated far away
from the place of occurrence on the date and time of occurrence
in this case. The equitable discretionary powers under section
438 Cr.P.C. has to be invoked to prevent and protect person from
any probable false implication. However, I make it clear that
the veracity of Annexure-A2 can still be questioned during trial,
not withstanding any thing stated in this order. Any way, on the
facts and circumstances of this case, I find that it is only fit to
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Hence, the following order is passed:-
The petitioner, in the event of his arrest, shall be
released on bail on his executing a bond for
Rs.25,000/- with solvent sureties each for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on
condition that the petitioner shall not intimidate or
BA 4307/08 -4-
threaten the defacto-complainant or witnesses while on bail
and in case breach of this condition, bail is liable to be
cancelled.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.