IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3419 of 2010()
1. NAJEEB, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED KUNJU,
... Petitioner
2. KABEER, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED KUNJU,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :18/06/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
------------------
B.A. No. 3419 of 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010
O R D E R
Petition for bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 144, 147,
148, 447, 341, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners(A2 and
A3) along with 10 others formed themselves into an unlawful
assembly armed and with deadly weapons like chopper, iron rod
and sticks assaulted de facto complainant, his two sons and
nephew.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto
complainant, his two sons and nephew form a goonda gang and
they are menace to the locality. They are involved in various
criminal cases and several complaints are registered against them
by the people of the locality,but they continued their criminal
activities. Since second accused was close to de facto
complainant, who filed a complaint against de facto complainant,
he was on enimical terms with the second accused. Therefore,
second accused was falsely implicated in a theft case. He is a
B.A. No. 3419 of 2010 2
mental patient who needs medication.
4. De facto complainant came to the house of second
accused when he was not available in the case, abused his wife
and daughters. Thereafter, when de facto complainant was
coming out of the house, second and third accused happened to
meet him at the junction while an incident happened involving
several persons, but the incident did not happen as alleged by
the prosecution. The weapon which was used by de facto
complainant was snatched away and in the scuffle, some injuries
are sustained by the defacto complainant. Petitioner is in
custody since his arrest on 25.05.2010. It is also submitted that
co accused nos.7 to 9 were granted bail, as per order dated
18.05.2010 in Bail Application No. 2934/2010.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that four persons
are injured in the offence. De facto complainant, his sons and
nephew sustained injuries of considerable nature. As per the
prosecution case, petitioners had definite motive for committing
the offences. Learned Public Prosecutor however, conceded that
de facto complainant is now under going detention under the
B.A. No. 3419 of 2010 3
goonda Act and certain co-accused are grated bail.
6. On hearing both sides and on taking into consideration,
stage of investigation and the fact that the recovery is over and
that certain co-accused are on bail and other facts pointed out
by petitioners counsel, I find that further detention of
petitioners are not justified. Hence the following order is
passed:
Petitioners shall be released on bail on their
executing bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the Magistrate Court concerned on
the following conditions:
i) Petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on every Monday,
Wednesday and Saturday, between 10
A.M. and 1 P.M., until further orders.ii) Petitioners shall not enter the limits of
the police station within which the
crime is registered, except for
compliance of condition no.1.B.A. No. 3419 of 2010 4
iii) Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate
any witness or tamper with the evidence.iv) In case, petitioners are involved in any
similar offence, bail is liable to be
cancelled.
This petition is allowed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE
ln