High Court Kerala High Court

Shiju.M vs State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Shiju.M vs State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3748 of 2008()


1. SHIJU.M, S/O. A.M. BASHEER,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ABDUL VAHAB, AGED 72,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY STATION
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.HABEEB

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :20/06/2008

 O R D E R
                             K.HEMA, J.

                 -----------------------------------------
                        B.A.No. 3748 of 2008
                 -----------------------------------------

              Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008

                              O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. On the basis of the First Information Statement given by

the defacto complainant, a crime is registered under Sections 324

and 308 of Indian Penal Code. Later the crime was altered and

offence under Section 307 and 34 IPC included.

3. Petitioners are accused 3 and 4 in the crime. Learned

counsel for petitioners submitted that a reading of the First

Information Statement will show that only one person was involved

in the offences and he was named in the First Information

Statement. There is no allegation that any other person was

involved. Therefore, crime was registered against that person under

Sections 324 and 308 of Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, due to

the influence of the defacto complainant’s parents, who are CMI(M)

Local Secretary and the District Panchayat Member respectively,

five other persons were brought into the array of accused. There

was absolutely no whisper in the First Information Statement

regarding the involvement of any other person than one Sakkir in

the First Information Statement.

BA.3748/08 2

4. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that there is

a dispute between the defacto complainant and the accused in

connection with a Mosque. Petitioners resisted the defacto

complainant from continuing as office bearer of the Mosque. Out of

this enmity, the petitioners are deliberately brought into array of

accused. Though the crime is registered for the offences under

Sections 308 and 324 IPC, it was deliberately altered under

Sections 307 and 34 IPC also. It is also submitted that the injury is

not very serious and the defacto complainant was discharged from

the hospital within two hours and he went to the police station to

lodge the complaint.

5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public

Prosecutor submitted that though the defacto complainant was

discharged from the hospital, he was later admitted in a private

hospital. It is also submitted that conspiracy is involved in this case

and the petitioners are the actually offenders.

6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that it is only a fit and

proper case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Hence, the following order is passed:

The petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court

within seven days from today and on surrender, if bail application is

BA.3748/08 3

moved, they 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 Magistrate, on condition that they shall co-

operate with the investigation.

This petition is allowed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE

vgs.