IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6988 of 2008()
1. AMARAYIL SUFIYAN, AGED 41 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. PALLIPPURAM YOOSAF HAJI, AGED 52 YEARS
3. PALLIPPURAM NAVAS, AGED 27 YEARS,
4. PALLIPPURAM IBRAHANHIMKUTTY,
5. THAYYILSAIDALAVI HAJI, AGED 55 YEARS,
6. MUJEEB RAHMAN, S/O.MOHAMMED,
7. ABDU HAJI, S/O. MAMMU HAJI,
8. MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O.ENU, THAYYIL HOUSE,
Vs
1. S.I. OF POLICE KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :24/11/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No.6988 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 24th day of November,2008
O R D E R
Petition for bail.
2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 148,
341, 307, 324, 302 read with section 149 IPC. According to
prosecution, there was a dispute between two groups regarding
the presidentship of the mosque committee. On the crucial day
there was a quarrel between them in the mosque on this and
following the quarrel, petitioners along with other accused
attacked de facto complainant and others using knives, iron rod,
stick, etc. De facto complainant’s two brothers were murdered.
Four other persons were injured in the incident.
3. Accused 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 were arrested on 4-9-2008,
accused 6 and 9 were arrested on 6-10-2008 and 10th accused
was arrested on 30-8-2008. Learned counsel for petitioners
submitted that petitioners are in jail for a very long time. It is also
submitted that various accused in this case also sustained serious
injuries in the course of the same incident and they were
hospitalized. According to petitioners, incident happened while
the 2nd accused (who was subsequently deleted from the array of
the accused) was taking water from the mosque. He filed a
BA 6988//08 -2-
complaint, based on which, Crime No.432/2008 was registered
against de facto complainant in this case and various others for
assaulting him and many of the accused in this case. But, the
accused in that case are at large and not arrested so far.
4. It is pointed out that a car in which de facto complainant
and others were travelling was found to contain some weapons
and that will indicate that de facto complainant and others were
carrying weapons. It is also submitted that petitioners are
prepared to abide by any condition and they will not enter the
limits of police station which which the crime is registered.
Petitioners had sustained serious injuries including penetrating
wound, etc. Hence, they may be granted bail, it is submitted.
5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public
prosecutor submitted that these cases involve a quarrel between
two factions in which two persons succumbed to the injuries
sustained in the incident. Four persons were injured and they
were hospitalized. Deadly weapons were used for the offence by
both sides and another case was also registered for offence under
section 307 IPC etc. But, it is not correct to say that the police was
inactive in not arresting the accused in the counter case. They
were injured and hospitalized.
BA 6988//08 -3-
6. The submission made by petitioners counsel itself
reveals that in connection with this incident both sides were
injured. It is pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor. If the
petitioners are released on bail, it is likely that there will be more
bloodshed. The opposite group will be waiting for the release of
petitioners to retaliate and in such case, there will be law and
order problem in the locality. There is already a tensed situation
in the locality, though apparently it appears to be calm, learned
Public Prosecutor submitted.
7. On hearing both sides, it appears that there were
attacks by two groups against each other and both were using
weapons at the premises of a mosque. However, 10th accused was
in judicial custody from 30-8-2008 onwards for the past 85 days.
The charge sheet is not submitted so far. If 90 days are
completed, he will be entitled to statutory bail. His name is not
mentioned in the F.I.R. and no overt act is attributed to him as per
the allegations in the F.I.R. In such circumstances, I find that
10th accused can be granted bail on stringent conditions but, I am
not inclined to grant bail to other accused.
8. In the result, the following order is passed.
1)The 10thaccused is granted bail on his executing a bond
BA 6988//08 -4-
for Rs.1 lakh with two solvent sureties each for the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
Magistrate concerned, on the following
conditions:-
i) He shall report before the Superintendent
of Police, Malappuram on every alternate
day between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. until
further orders.
ii) He shall not enter the limits of the
police station within which the crime
is registered.
iii) He shall surrender his passport, if any ,
before the Magistrate Court
concerned within seven days from his
release on bail. If he has no passport,
he shall file an affidavit to that effect
before the Magistrate Court, within
seven days from today.
iv) He shall reside at a place lying within
a radius of 3 k.m. from the office of
the Superintendent of Police.
BA 6988//08 -5-
v) He shall not intimidate or influence
any witness or tamper with evidence
or commit any offence while on bail
and in case breach of this condition,
bail is liable to be cancelled.
2) The prayer for bail by other accused is rejected.
This petition is partly allowed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
mn. B