High Court Kerala High Court

A.Aboobacker vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 15 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
A.Aboobacker vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 15 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3969 of 2009()


1. A.ABOOBACKER, P.O.MATTARAKAL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :15/09/2009

 O R D E R
                           K.T.SANKARAN, J.
              ------------------------------------------------------
                       B.A. NO. 3969 OF 2009
              ------------------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 15th September, 2009

                                  O R D E R

Accused No.3, A.Aboobacker, in Crime No.273 of 2009 of

Perinthalmanna Police Station, has filed this application for anticipatory

bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other

accused are under Sections 307 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

3. On 9.4.2009 at about 11.15 AM, one Asif Ali sustained injuries

due to stabbing. The incident occurred at Mattarakal Bazaar. At 1 PM on

that day, the First Information Statement of one Biju was recorded. In the

First Information Statement, it was alleged that the first accused, namely,

Jafar @ Pathiri Jafar, stabbed Asif Ali. Asif Ali tried to escape. Even

thereafter, he was chased by Jafar and another person and he was again

stabbed. Asif Ali sustained serious injuries and he was taken to the

hospital. The petitioner is not shown as an accused in the First

Information Statement. During investigation, it was revealed that the

incident occurred and the offence was committed as directed and at the

instance of the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the accused

B.A. NO.3969 OF 2009

:: 2 ::

persons conspired together and attacked Asif Ali. Asif Ali was an

accused in a case in which the petitioner was the de facto complainant.

Asif Ali was granted anticipatory bail. It was during that period,

according to the prosecution, Asif Ali was attacked by the accused

persons.

4. The petitioner claims that he is engaged in cultural and

charitable activities. He has founded a charitable trust under the name

and style “Deshasnehi” at Perinthalmanna. It is stated that the Trust was

registered in the year 2005. The petitioner is the Chairman of the Trust.

The petitioner was fighting against the liquor lobbies. He even filed a

Writ Petition before the High Court to see that a toddy shop is shifted

from a place. According to him, his cultural and social activities were not

to the liking of several persons and there was an attempt to malign him

among the general public.

5. According to the prosecution, there arose lot of complaints

against the activities of the petitioner. In the name of the Trust, the

petitioner was indulging in unlawful activities. Mass petitions were being

filed by the local public against the activities of the petitioner. Asif Ali

had a quarrel with the petitioner. The petitioner was infuriated by the

acts of Asif Ali. The conspiracy was hatched in these circumstances.

B.A. NO.3969 OF 2009

:: 3 ::

6. In the First Information Statement itself, there is mention of the

acts of Asif Ali against the petitioner. It is stated in the First Information

Statement that the first accused proclaimed after stabbing Asif Ali that

the same fate would occur to all who dare to touch Backer. According to

the prosecution, Backer is the petitioner.

7. The injuries sustained by Asif Ali are grievous. Stab injuries

were inflicted on him. He was in the hospital for several days. Learned

Public Prosecutor submitted that if anticipatory bail is granted to the

petitioner, it would seriously affect the progress of the investigation of the

case.

8. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the

view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge

ahz/