IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4565 of 2010()
1. MOHAMMED SHAHEER, AGED 23 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE SHO, GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION,
For Petitioner :SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :17/08/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
------------------
B.A. No. 4565 of 2010
-----------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 341, 323 and
324 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on
17.07.2010 at about 5.25 P.M., petitioner trespassed into the de
facto complainant’s house and wrongfully restrained him and
assaulted him by using a reaper.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has
not actually trespassed into the house as alleged. De facto
complainant’s mother had obtained an order against de facto
complainant from the Magistrate Court as Annexure-I, by which she
is permitted to reside in the house where the incident occurred and
the de facto complainant was prohibited from disturbing the
residence of de facto complainant’s mother in the house. After
obtaining the order, de facto complainant’s mother found that the
house was locked and hence, she returned. Later, with police
protection, she along with her counsel and petitioner, who is a
B.A. No. 4565 / 2010 2
neighbour came to the house. Petitioner is aged about 25 years and
he is an engineer and he went to the house only for helping the de
facto complainant’s mother.
4. According to petitioner, on reaching the house, the de facto
complainant and some persons were found in the house, de facto
complainant’s mother’s entry was not to the liking of the de facto
complainant and therefore, de facto complainant’s mother was
assaulted by the de facto complainant and she was attempted to be
locked up in the room. The petitioner went to her rescue while he
was assaulted by de facto complainant and he sustained serious
injuries. He had a ” closed head injury” and rupture of right eyelid
etc. He went to the hospital on the same day and he made an
allegation of assault to the doctor. He was referred to another
hospital for better management and Annexures II and III will
revealed these facts.
5. Petitioner would also contend that in respect of the same
incident, the police did not register any case though petitioner had
made allegations of assault to the doctor. Hence, petitioner filed a
complaint before the Superintendent of Police. The de facto
B.A. No. 4565 / 2010 3
complainant’s mother also filed a petition before the Minister and
Superintendent of Police etc. about the incident and the copy is
Annexure-IV. In the light of what transpired in the house, she also
moved Magistrate Court for obtaining an order, since, in spite of
the Annexure-I order directing de facto complainant not to disturb
the residence of the de facto complainant’s mother, herself and
petitioner were attacked by de facto complainant with a view to
cause obstruction to her residence in the house.
6. On 19.07.2010, an order was passed by learned Magistrate
as per which the de facto complainant and his men were restrained
from residing in the house. Key of house and all the rooms were
ordered to be handed over to de facto complainant’s mother. The
Circle Inspector was also directed to execute the order and filed a
report on the very same day. The order dated 19.07.2010 is also
produced. It is also submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that
the def acto complainant is working abroad and he was resisting
his mother from residing in the property and hence she was forced
to get an order from the Magistrate Court. De facto complainant has
suppressed all these facts in the F.I. Statement and given a
B.A. No. 4565 / 2010 4
distorted version. He has not actually sustained any serious
injuries. Petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition and co-
operate with the investigation.
7. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that de facto complainant had sustained some injury to
the hand and he was hospitalised. As per the allegations in the F.I.
Statement, petitioner had trespassed into the house and attacked
the de facto complainant with a reaper.
8. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary
and the documents produced in this case, I find that petitioner
sustained serious injuries, as revealed from the medical records
produced. A clear allegation was made to the doctor that petitioner
sustained injuries in an assault. No crime was registered in respect
of such assault. The prosecution has no explanation why no crime
was registered. There is also no explanation how petitioner
sustained serious injuries in the incident.
9. It also seen from the F.I. Statement given by the de facto
complainant that he was proceeding to the airport to go to Dubai
along with his wife while he got information from his lawyer that an
B.A. No. 4565 / 2010 5
order was passed in favour of the mother. He therefore, gave up his
trip and came back. According to him, his mother had abandoned
him at the age of eight years and she joined a film director and she
obtained divorce from his father. It is thus, clear that the
relationship between the mother and son is strained.
10. At the same time, it appears that an order is passed by
the Magistrate Court in favour of the mother allowing her to reside
in the shared household, which indicates that the mother has some
right of residence in the house. It is also to be noted that sons are
prohibited from causing any disturbance to the mother. Annexure-
IV will show that on the very next day of the incident, de facto
complainant’s mother sent a complaint stating the manner in which,
petitioner was attacked at the house of the de facto complainant
etc. On evaluation of all the materials before me, I find that it is
only just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner on
conditions. Hence, the following order is passed:
1. Petitioner shall, in the event of his arrest be
released on bail on his executing a bond
for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five
B.A. No. 4565 / 2010 6
thousand only) with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the arresting officer on the following
conditions:
i). Petitioner shall report before the
investigating officer as and when
directed and co-operate with the
investigation.
ii). Petitioner shall not influence or
intimidate any witness or tamper
with the evidence.
2). This order will be in force only for a period
of 30 days from today. In the meantime,
petitioner shall seek regular bail from the
court concerned in accordance with law.This petition is allowed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE
ln