High Court Kerala High Court

Muhammed Nazir @ Nazir vs State Of Kerala Through The on 17 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Muhammed Nazir @ Nazir vs State Of Kerala Through The on 17 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5347 of 2008()


1. MUHAMMED NAZIR @ NAZIR,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RAFEEQUE, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI HAJI,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :17/09/2008

 O R D E R
                              K.HEMA, J.
                 -------------------------------------------------
                          B.A.No.5347 of 2008
                 -------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008



                                 O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 324, 365 and

308 read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution,

petitioners along with another allegedly took the defacto

complainant by force into a vehicle while he was proceeding

along the road and assaulted him. Two weapons were used for

the offence (one sharp weapon and another is an iron lever).

This incident occurred on 17.8.2008 at about 4.15 p.m.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners were hospitalised , sustained serious injuries in an

assault made on them, on 21.7.2008 by the defacto complainant

and his brother. In the assault, first petitioner had sustained as

many as five incised wounds over the left forearm, upper arm,

lower part of the neck, vertex and right thump. Second

petitioner had sustained fracture dislocation of PIP joint of right

ring finger and he was also hospitalised in connection with the

BA No.5347/08 2

said incident. It is highly improbable that within a short span of

time, on 17.8.2008, petitioners had forcibly taken the defacto

complainant into a vehicle, it is submitted. According to learned

counsel for the petitioners, petitioners were not in a physically fit

condition to commit the said offence.

4. It is also pointed out that even as per the First

Information Statement, the allegation is that the first petitioner

had “drawn” on both the hands and back and chest with a sharp

weapon. Majority of the injuries sustained are all abrasions also.

It is also submitted that the defacto complainant was allegedly

beaten with an iron lever on the forehead and when he evaded, it

hit on the forehead and he sustained an injury. But, as per the

wound certificate, an incised wound is caused on the forehead,

which is unlikely to be caused by an iron lever, it is submitted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that

the petitioners are totally innocent of the allegations made. A

false complaint has been lodged by creating some abrasions on

the body and this was done for pressuring petitioners for

settling the earlier case, which occurred on 21.7.2008. The

defacto complainant and the petitioners are close relatives. The

BA No.5347/08 3

FI statement was registered a few days prior to the betrothal of

the first petitioner.

6. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor

submitted that the defacto complainant sustained incised injury

on the forehead and also other abrasions and those are only

consistent with the allegations made. Two weapons are used for

the offence and those are to be recovered. The investigation is

at the initial stage, it is submitted.

7. After hearing both sides, particularly, on going

through the case diary and the materials so far available therein,

also perusing the documents relating to the injuries sustained by

the petitioners in the earlier incident etc., I find that anticipatory

bail can be granted to the petitioners.

Hence, the following order is passed:

(i) Petitioners shall surrender before the

Investigating Officer within seven days from

today and they shall make themselves available

for interrogation and co-operate with the

investigation.

(ii) Thereafter, in the event of their arrest, if any,

BA No.5347/08 4

petitioners shall be released on bail on their

executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two

solvent sureties each for the like sum to the

satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition

that they will report before the Investigating

Officer as and when directed and co-operate

with the investigation.

The petition is allowed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl