Loading...

Ashraf Narikoottamchal vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 20 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
Ashraf Narikoottamchal vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 20 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 6109 of 2008()


1. ASHRAF NARIKOOTTAMCHAL,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ASLAM, S/O. KUNHAMMAD, 32 YEARS, -DO-
3. RIYAS KUNIYIL, S/O. UMMAR,
4. NIZAR, S/O. KUNHABDULLA, AGED 29 YEARS

                        Vs



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

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :20/10/2008

 O R D E R
                               K. HEMA, J.
               ---------------------------------------------------
                  Bail Appl.No. 6109 of 2008
               ---------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008.

                                ORDER

Petition for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143,

147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 506(i) read with 149 of IPC. According

to prosecution, the de facto complainant and the first accused

were working abroad. The first accused borrowed some money

from the de facto complainant and a demand was made to return

the money. This offended the first accused and hence, he along

with 4 others, allegedly trespassed into the house of de facto

complainant and assaulted his father. The first accused used an

iron rod and injuries were sustained.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the incident did not occur, as alleged. The petitioners were invited

by the de facto complainant’s father, for settling the dispute

relating to money. The petitioners went to their house in a car

and the matter being talked into. In the meanwhile, the

[B.A.No.6109/08] 2

petitioners were assaulted and the car was also damaged by the

de facto complainant and others. Petitioners were hospitalized for

four days. Thereafter, the de facto complainant and others filed

the present crime without any basis leaving some action against

them, it is submitted. To the knowledge of the petitioners, the de

facto complainant’s father was not even hospitalised, it is

submitted.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted as per the allegations, the petitioners along with

others trespassed into the house of de facto complainant since

the first accused was offended because of the demand made by

the de facto complainant’s father to return the money, which he

borrowed. An iron rod was used to beat the de facto

complainant’s father on his leg and he was taken to the hospital.

As per the wound certificate, the injured was found crying, but

as per the X-ray, no fracture was noted. It is true that in the

First Information Statement the weapon was described as stick

( ) but he explained in further questioning that the weapon

used is iron rod ( ). It cannot be said that it is a vital

discrepancy.

[B.A.No.6109/08] 3

5. On hearing both sides, I find that there was an

attack and counter attack but mere counter allegation is not

sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. In an offence of this nature,

it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail. The iron rod, which is

allegedly used for committing the offence is to be recovered and

the petitioners will be required for interrogation.

This petition is dismissed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

Krs.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information