IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6025 of 2009()
1. M.K. SAYED, AGED 30 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. MUSLIYARATH RAFI, AGED 25
3. SEVAYEE ASIF, AGED 19
4. M.K. ERASHATH, AGED 19 YEARS,
5. THAZHATHAPURAL MURSOOK,
6. C. HAXEEN, AGED 18 YEARS,
7. M. MUJEEB, AGED 20 YEARS,
8. RASHEED M. AGED 18 YEARS,
9. N.P. FAYAZ, AGED 18 YEARS,
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.HABEEB
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :19/01/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 6025 OF 2009
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 9
in Crime No.272 of 2009 of Pazhayangadi Police Station, Kannur
District.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that on 6.10.2009, there was a
clash between members of two political parties and the petitioners
committed the offence. It is submitted that Crime Nos.271 and 272
of 2009 were registered in respect of the offence committed by the
different political groups at different hours on the same day.
4. The de facto complainant has sustained fracture of left
tibia. The allegation is that the first accused caused the injury by
B.A. NO. 6025 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
beating with an iron pipe. The injury sustained by the de facto
complainant is not attributable to any of the overt acts allegedly
committed by accused Nos.2 to 9.
5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner
(first accused). Custodial interrogation of the first accused may be
required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the first
accused, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the
case. However, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be
granted to petitioners 2 to 9 (accused Nos.2 to 9), in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
6. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of
petitioners 2 to 9 (accused Nos.2 to 9), the officer in charge of the
police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for
Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following
conditions:
B.A. NO. 6025 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
a) Petitioners 2 to 9 (accused Nos.2 to 9) shall report
before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11
A.M. on alternate Sundays, till the final report is filed or
until further orders;
b) Petitioners 2 to 9 (accused Nos.2 to 9) shall appear
before the investigating officer for interrogation as and
when required;
c) Petitioners 2 to 9 (accused Nos.2 to 9) shall not try to
influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the
evidence;
d) Petitioners 2 to 9 (accused Nos.2 to 9) shall not commit
any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on
bail;
e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned
above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.
The Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the
first petitioner (accused No.1) and it is allowed in the manner
indicated above, in so far as it relates to petitioners 2 to 9 (accused
Nos.2 to 9).
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/