High Court Kerala High Court

C. Muhammed Iqbal vs State – Represented By Public … on 2 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
C. Muhammed Iqbal vs State – Represented By Public … on 2 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4402 of 2007()


1. C. MUHAMMED IQBAL, AGED 45 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :02/08/2007

 O R D E R






                              R. BASANT, J.

               -------------------------------------------------

                         B.A. No. 4402 OF  2007

               -------------------------------------------------

              Dated this the  2nd  day of August, 2007



                                   ORDER

Whoever you be – Judge, Prosecutor, Counsel, Police

Official or an ordinary lay citizen; if after going through the

Case Diary in this case, your sense of justice and righteousness

is not hurt or wounded, there must be something structurally

defective and deficient in you. The crime alleged in this case

and the sequence of events that followed are truly disturbing.

Your pride of being a citizen in this Republic wedded to rule of

law would be pricked. Any civilized society must hang its

head down in shame that such events can take place within it

anywhere. It would be abdication of responsibility for this

Court to pretend not to have seen the sorry state of affairs in

this Case Diary and proceed to dispose of the anticipatory bail

application wearing blinkers. Observations must be made

about the gross injustice in the hope that such observations

B.A. No. 4402 OF 2007 -: 2 :-

will improve the quality of criminal justice delivery system in the

State and ignoring the apprehension that the observations may

trigger sensational commercial journalism and provide fodder for

political fencing.

2. The events took place not in any corner of the State; but

in the heart of Talassery Town which has a place of prominence

in the judicial map of this country – that too at the busy O.V.

Road. There is a row of shops lying east to west abutting the

main road. The victim in this case runs a petty shop – a textile

and tailoring shop – in the middle room, having taken the

premises on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.3,100/- as per a lease

deed dated 1/4/04 in the name of his wife. One Musthafa and

Mohammed Kunhi are said to be the joint owners of the said

shop room. The petitioner herein is arrayed as the 4th accused.

He is Mohammed Iqbal, the Power-of-Attorney holder of the

said Mohammed Kunhi. The rooms on the east and west of the

victim’s shop as also the area behind have all been sold. There

were requests to the victim to surrender his premises. He did

B.A. No. 4402 OF 2007 -: 3 :-

not yield to those requests. Such requests were allegedly made

by accused 1 to 4 whose names are narrated in the F.I.R. On

the night of 7/4/07, the victim had closed the shop and

proceeded to his house in peace. The next morning he was

informed that his shop room as well as the adjacent shop rooms

have all been razed down brutally employing JCBs and other

vehicles. The tenant – victim who thought that law will take care

of them and will not be forcibly thrown out of possession, came

on the next morning to see his shop room razed down and all the

articles either destroyed or removed stealthily. He ran to the

police station in the hope that he will get justice from the police.

An F.I.R. was registered. The four persons, who had allegedly

wanted the victim to surrender his shop, were naturally shown

as the suspected accused persons who must have had a role in

razing down his shop room. The investigation slowly proceeded.

The persons in the locality were questioned by the police. The

adjacent shop owner stated to the police that the four accused

persons had come on the previous night to him and had insisted

B.A. No. 4402 OF 2007 -: 4 :-

that he must vacate the premises after taking away all his

articles on the same night. He complied with the said request.

As he was proceeding to leave his shop in the late hours, he had

seen the JCB and all the paraphernalia kept ready for operation

with the four accused persons present there.

3. The 4th accused – the petitioner herein came to this

Court claiming anticipatory bail. On his own showing he is a very

influential person of the locality. There are indications to show

that he enjoys affluence also. He prayed that anticipatory bail

may be granted to him. The incident took place in the night of

7/4/07 and the petitioner had come to this Court as late as on

12/7/07. He was not arrested till then. He raised a contention

before me when the matter came up for hearing that he is only a

suspect; that the suspicion is unjustified and that he is not liable

to be arrested.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor was requested to place

the Case Diary for the perusal of this Court. A perusal of the

Case Diary shows that one Koduvally Rajan in a petition dated

B.A. No. 4402 OF 2007 -: 5 :-

9/4/07 had admitted before the Investigating Officer that he is

the one responsible for demolition of the building. He had

marked copies of the petition to all the higher officials of the

police in the District. Very interestingly, he raised a contention

that the victim had no rights at all and the victim was trying to

get back into possession of the premises which admittedly was

razed down by him. A perusal of the Case Diary revealed that

the said Koduvally Rajan had not been arrayed as an accused

notwithstanding his bold assertion that he was responsible for

the demolition of the building. This Court was disturbed. The

learned Public Prosecutor was directed to take instructions and

explain. Thereafter, the learned Director General of

Prosecutions has appeared on behalf of the police before me.

Ordinary prudence is expected from all human beings. If such

a demolition did take place, any prudent person must suspect the

owner for having carried the mission. If he did not so suspect,

there is something certainly suspicions in his prudence. But the

Investigating Officer does not appear to have considered that

B.A. No. 4402 OF 2007 -: 6 :-

possibility at all. The Case Diary was placed before this Court

on 20/7/07. Koduvally Rajan was not made an accused. No

efforts were made to bring him on the array of accused or to

make enquiries about him till then.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor and learned D.G.P. were

requested to keep the Case Diary in their safe custody. The

Investigating Officer was given an opportunity to explain. He

has now filed a statement. The Case Diary now shows that the

electrical energy connection to the premises was switched off on

the night in question to facilitate the demolition. Now it is said

that a conspiracy was hatched to carry out the evil mission. It is

now stated that Koduvally Rajan has been apprehended and

produced before Court on 25/7/07 after this Court made

observations on 24/7/07 and gave the Investigating Officer an

opportunity to explain. The Case Diary shows that the local

people were outraged by the culpable conduct of the offenders.

It also indicates that the local people suspected foul play. A

harthal was organised by the Merchants’ Association. Obviously

B.A. No. 4402 OF 2007 -: 7 :-

the sentiments of the right thinking members of the community

were hurt and disturbed.

6. The Investigating Officer now tries to explain that

Koduvally Rajan’s address in the petition received by him was

not correct. It was not handed over to him personally. It was

received by post. Though it is seen that copies are marked to

the superior officers, copies were not really sent. The

Investigating Officer could not ascertain the identity of that

person. That is why he was not arrayed as an accused and was

not proceeded against till this Court made observations on

24/7/07. One cannot be too naove and gullible to meekly

swallow these excuses. If ordinary prudence is employed, it is

not difficult to see that the demolition was carried out after

prior concert and elaborate preparation and with the blessings

or at least the willingness to close their eyes of the the powers

that be to the injustice that was perpetrated. The investigation

is most unsatisfactory. It is difficult to restrain oneself and not

draw the inference that the entire operation had the blessings of

B.A. No. 4402 OF 2007 -: 8 :-

the powers that be.

7. Police is the visible arm of the State. Good governance

cannot take place unless we have an efficient, sincere, honest

and committed police force. The police force in the country

must also have commitment to the fundamental values of the

Constitution. Concern for the weak, the underprivileged, the

less fortunate and the victims of crimes must be inherent in the

police force. That is the sum and substance of the preambular

commitment in the Constitution. In a socialist democratic

republic if the arms of the State do not have such fundamental

commitment to the weak and underprivileged, the ideals of the

Constitution can never be achieved.

8. Idealism by itself will not be sufficient. It must be

matched with efficient and effective systems. It has been the

misfortune to this Court, sitting in this jurisdiction, to see the

very low quality of investigation in crimes in this State. The

police force has to become professional. Every police officer

must have pride in the discharge of his duty. That is crucially

B.A. No. 4402 OF 2007 -: 9 :-

lacking today, it appears. Efforts to make the police a

committed professional force have not been seriously

undertaken.

9. The learned D.G.P. submits that the needful shall be

done and proper and effective investigation shall be conducted in

the case. In one case where this Court happens to see the Case

Diary and expresses its dissatisfaction, such an offer is made.

But that is not sufficient at all. It must be for the police force to

ensure that ongoing supervision of investigationa is conducted

by the superior officials. In each Zone and in each sub-division

there must be a group of senior police officials who will monitor

and supervise the investigation in the crimes. Every

Investigating Officer must feel that his work will be supervised

and it will be suicidal professionally if he does not act efficiently.

10. I leave it there. It is for the learned Director General

of Prosecutions and the top brass of the police to take necessary

steps, of course, with the active support and assistance of the

political executive to ensure that the quality of investigation is

B.A. No. 4402 OF 2007 -: 10 :-

considerably improved and that those responsible for such

collusive investigations are brought to book.

11. Coming back to the prayer of the 4th accused for

anticipatory bail, he claims to be the Power-of-Attorney holder of

one of the two joint owners of the property. The learned D.G.P.

submits that Koduvally Rajan does not appear to be an important

player in the crime that has been committed. He, the learned

D.G.P. feels, is only a pawn in the hands of the criminals whom

the learned D.G.P. describes as the `Real estate Mafia’. The

petition is significantly silent that his principal has lost interest

in the property and has already assigned the property to the said

Koduvally Rajan. That shows that at least, the learned D.G.P.

has correctly understood that the machinations were not of the

persons who are the apparent title holders. The petitioner

certainly appears to be an important player in the scheme that

was implemented.

12. There is indication to show that the petitioner was one

of those who wanted the tenant to vacate. There is material to

B.A. No. 4402 OF 2007 -: 11 :-

show that on the previous night the petitioner had gone to one of

the adjacent owners and had wanted the occupant to

immediately vacate the premises. There are indications in the

Case Diary to show that the petitioner was present in the

locality late that night.

13. The jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail is certainly

not to be invoked as a matter of course. It must be reserved for

extraordinary situations where the court is satisfied that the

powers of arrest are about to be misused or abused. I do not in

this case find any such features which would justify the

invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under

Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. This certainly is a fit case where the

petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer or the

learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and seek regular bail in

the ordinary course.

14. I expect the State to take necessary steps to ensure

that the investigation is entrusted to the officers of highest

integrity and competence. Necessary action in this regard shall

B.A. No. 4402 OF 2007 -: 12 :-

be taken within a period of 15 days from this date and the action

taken shall be reported to this Court.

15. This bail application is accordingly dismissed.

16. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned Director

General of Prosecutions.

17. Call on 20/8/2007 for report of the learned D.G.P.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

B.A. No. 4402 OF 2007 -: 13 :-