IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 760 of 2010()
1. AHAMMED KABIR, S/O.C.S.ABDUL KHADER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA THORUGH
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :08/03/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NOS. 760 & 1083 OF 2010
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
Bail Application Nos.760 of 2010 and 1083 of 2010 are filed
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, respectively
by accused Nos.10 and 11 (Ahammed Kabir and Najeemudin) in
Crime No. 976 of 2009 of Kasaragod Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the accused persons are
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 459, 354, 323, 324, 120 B, 212, 364-
A and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in a nut shell, is the following: Faizal
Patel, brother of accused Nos.1 and 2, who operates his dealings
from Middle East, is indulged in hawala money transactions in India.
A sum of Rs.16,30,000/- was given by Faizal Patel to one Rafeeq,
for the purpose of giving the same to Ahammed. Ahammed was
directed to distribute the money to several hawala customers.
Rafeeq handed over the amount to Ahammed. Ahammed alleged
B.A. Nos.760 & 1083 OF 2010
:: 2 ::
that on 5-11-2009, certain persons robbed the amount from him.
However, the matter was not reported to the police, evidently since
the transaction was a hawala money transaction. Ahammad
reported the matter to Faizal Patel. Faizal Patel made his own
enquiries. He arrived at the conclusion that Ahammed was not
stating the truth. Ahammed was apprehended by Faizal Patel’s
people. Ahammed was directed to pay the amount to Faizal Patel.
Ahammed expressed his inability to pay the amount. Another
suggestion was made to Ahammed to compensate Faizal Patel by
assigning immovable property. On 20-11-2009, immovable property
belonging to the father in law of Ahammed was assigned to
Najeemudin (Petitioner in B.A. No.1083 of 2010), who is none other
than the husband of Faizal Patel’s wife’s sister.
4. The prosecution alleges that on further enquiry by Faizal
Patel and his men, it was revealed that the amount of Rs.16,30,000/-
was robbed from Ahammed by one Dawood, with the help of Rafeeq.
Since Faizal Patel was convinced that Ahammed was innocent in the
deal, the immovable property transferred in the name of Najeemudin
was re-transferred to the father in law of Ahammed. On 30-12-2009,
B.A. Nos.760 & 1083 OF 2010
:: 3 ::
accused Nos.1 and 2, who are the brothers of Faizal Patel, with the
help of their associates, totalling fifteen in number, abducted Dawood
from his house, in a Maruti Swift car bearing registration No. KL 14 H
7000. They also attacked the brother and sister in law of Dawood.
At about 6.30 P.M. on 30-12-2009, three persons brought the dead
body of Dawood to Century Hospital, Kasaragod. The case of the
prosecution is that Dawood was brutally manhandled and murdered
by the accused persons.
5. Accused No.10 was arrested on 5-1-2010 while accused
No.11 was arrested on 6-1-2010. They were remanded to judicial
custody.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that about
two months are over since the arrest of the petitioners. There is no
reason why the petitioners should be detained further. Advocate Sri.
Sunny Mathew submitted that there is no material to connect
accused No.10 with the offence. He submitted that even if version of
the prosecution is accepted, the conspiracy was only to abduct
Dawood. There was no conspiracy to commit murder of Dawood.
B.A. Nos.760 & 1083 OF 2010
:: 4 ::
There was no intention to murder him. No weapons were allegedly
used by the accused. The counsel also submitted that if the intention
of the accused was to murder him, they could have done so without
any abduction. Advocate Sri.Rameshchander submitted that
accused No.11 is running Shereef Travels, Kasaragod. Accused No.
11 had no role in the offence. He is innocent of the offence. He is
only indulged in his business of Travel Agency and in that business,
he had to provide air tickets to many persons. That by itself should
not lead to the conclusion that he had indulged in any crime, if any,
committed by any such person who travelled using the air ticket
provided by the petitioner.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Bail
Applications. It is submitted that there is a racket in Kasaragod,
dealing in hawala money transactions. They have their own laws.
They make their own investigation if any “offence” in the hawala
dealing is committed by anybody. They have their own investigating
agency. They punish the “offenders” in their own way. The
unwritten law among them is that anybody who gives any information
to the police or any other authority about the hawala dealings, and
B.A. Nos.760 & 1083 OF 2010
:: 5 ::
anybody who acts in bad faith in hawala dealings, would be liable to
punishment according to the “laws” of hawala people. They
apprehend the offender, try him and punish him.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Dawood was
brutally murdered after abducting him. He was beaten up by iron
rods and sticks. He submitted that the Post Mortem certificate
reveals that Dawood died of bleeding from multiple blunt force
injuries sustained by him. Forty ante mortem injuries were noted on
the body of Dawood. He also submitted that there are enough
materials to connect the accused persons with the offence. Accused
No.10 was one among the group of persons who abducted Dawood
from the house of de facto complainant, who is the brother of
Dawood. Accused No.10 was all through out in the gang during
commission of the offence. As regards accused No.11, it is
submitted that he was involved in the activities of Faizal Patel. He
got assignment of immovable property from the father in law of
Ahammed, as directed by Faizal Patel. Later, as directed by Faizal
Patel, he re-transferred the property. Accused No.11 provided air
tickets to the first accused and the third accused, a few days after the
B.A. Nos.760 & 1083 OF 2010
:: 6 ::
murder of Dawood. Accused No.11 participated in the conspiracy as
well.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that only accused
Nos.1,4,5,6,10 and 11 were arrested. The other accused persons
are absconding.
10. The offence under Section 364-A is punishable with death,
or imprisonment for life and also fine. Therefore, I do not think that
the submission made by Advocate Sri.Sunny Mathew that if at all the
case of the prosecution is accepted, the conspiracy was only to
abduct Dawood, has any relevance.
11. The investigation of the case is not over. Several incidents
and facts are to be proved in the case. Several witnesses are to be
examined and the investigating agency has to collect several
materials to prove the guilt of the accused. All the accused persons
were not arrested. I am of the view that if the petitioners are
released on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the proper
investigation of the case. The petitioners are likely to make
B.A. Nos.760 & 1083 OF 2010
:: 7 ::
themselves scarce. It is also likely that the petitioners may indulge
in intimidating and influencing the witnesses. The alleged activities
of hawala racket is to be taken note of in this context. At this stage,
prima facie, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the
petitioners that there are no materials to connect them with the
offence.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/