IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4901 of 2010()
1. DR.RANEEF, AGED 39, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :20/08/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
------------------
B.A. No. 4901 of 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010
O R D E R
Petition for bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148,
120(B), 341, 427, 323, 324, 326, 506(ii) and 307 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 of the Explosive
Substance Act and Sections 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. According to prosecution,
Professor Joseph working in Newman’s College prepared a
question paper for the examination and one of the questions
framed was in such a way to ridicule Prophet Muhammed and
also Islam. Being infuriated by this, some workers of the
Popular Front of India hatched a criminal conspiracy to cut off
the right hand of the Professor and a few of the workers formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the
professor, by using axe, chopper etc. The right hand was cut off
and there was an attempt to commit his murder.
3. The professor’s near relatives intervened, while they
exploded explosive and criminally intimidated them to expel
B.A. No. 4901/ 2010 2
them. The professor’s son, rushed to the scene and in an attempt
to drive away the assailants, used a chopper and one of the
accused sustained an injury. The prosecution also alleges that
the Popular Front of India is having a medical wing which is
managed by petitioner, who is a dental surgeon. As per the
internal arrangement, he used to treat the workers of PFI, who
are injured. The accused, who was injured was taken to the
house of the 8th accused by the main offender, who is the 5th
accused along with accused no.17. The injured was in the first
floor of the house and hence, petitioner went upstairs and
sutured the wound from the house of the 8th accused, under
anaesthesia. Thereafter, petitioner returned in another car driven
by accused no.18. All these acts were done in pursuance of the
criminal conspiracy hatched among the accused.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner
is the 9th accused in the crime and he is absolutely innocent of
the allegations made. He is a dental surgeon by profession and
his wife is also a doctor. They are conducting a dental hospital in
Aluva. He has nothing to do with any of the accused in this case.
B.A. No. 4901/ 2010 3
Even if the entire allegations of the prosecution are accepted, the
offence involved will only be under Section 201 or 202, which
are bailable, it is submitted.
5. According to petitioner, he was taken into custody by
police on 12.07.2010 and his wife filed a complaint before the
ASP, Aluva and therefore, petitioner was arrested on
13.07.2010. He is in judicial custody for the past 40 days. No
purpose will be served by further detention of petitioner, it is
submitted. He has nothing to disclose in respect of the incident
and he was thoroughly questioned by the police. He was given to
police custody also for 8 days. There is absolutely nothing on
record to indicate that petitioner in any way hatched criminal
conspiracy with any of the accused and does not know any of
the accused, it is submitted.
6. This petition is strongly opposed. The Additional State
Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is not as innocent as
he is purported to be projected. Petitioner is only a dental
surgeon, but the investigation reveals that he had gone to the
house of 8th accused and sutured the wound on the injured on
B.A. No. 4901/ 2010 4
anaesthesia, which act, no doctor will normally do. The petitioner
is not able to explain the circumstances under which he went to
the house of the 8th accused. His case is of total denial, but his
involvement was revealed, when 8th accused was arrested on
12.07.2010. Petitioner was taken into custody and he was
interrogated and further details of his involvement are revealed.
7. The police also conducted a search in the car of
petitioner. Several incriminating pamphlets were seized from the
car. The documents seized include the question paper prepared
by the professor also, which is the root cause for commission of
the offence. The investigation is in progress. The main offenders
are yet to be arrested. If the petitioner is released on bail at this
stage, it will adversely affect the investigation, it is submitted.
The conspiracy being hatched in secrecy, arrest of main
offenders and their interrogation will be necessary to get a
clearer picture. But, if petitioner is released on bail at this stage,
it will stand in the way of an effective investigation, it is
submitted.
B.A. No. 4901/ 2010 5
8. On hearing both sides and on considering the rival
contentions, it appears to me that the arrest of the petitioner
was not merely for the reason that he caused some evidence to
disappear. The manner in which, and the place at which, the
injured was treated by petitioner is quite relevant to appreciate
the contention raised by prosecution that there is criminal
conspiracy. The petitioner has no explanation for several
incriminating evidence collected against him. In a case of this
nature, at this stage, when the main offenders are yet to be
arrested, I am of the view that it may not be proper to release
the petitioner on bail, since it may risk an effective investigation.
This petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE
ln