High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala Represented By vs Shameer on 10 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala Represented By vs Shameer on 10 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4249 of 2008()


1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SHAMEER, AGED 30 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ABDUL KAKKIM K.M., AGED 21 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :10/12/2008

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT, J.
            -------------------------------------------------
                  Crl.M.C. No. 4249 of 2008
            -------------------------------------------------
        Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008

                               ORDER

The State has preferred this Crl.M.C. with a prayer to

quash the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge under

Sec.439 Cr.P.C. granting bail to the respondents/petitioners

who are accused 6 and 7 in Crime No.15/06 of the

Binanipuram Police Station. That crime was registered

alleging offences punishable under Secs.120B and 124A IPC

and Secs.10 and 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1967.

2. The alleged incident took place on 15/8/06. There

was a meeting held at an auditorium at Panayikulam on that

day. That was the Independence Day and the meeting was

allegedly supposed to discuss the “role of the Muslims in the

struggle for Indian Independence”. On receipt of discreet

Crl.M.C. No. 4249 of 2008 -: 2 :-

information that such a meeting is going on and that the said

meeting was convened and conducted in violation of the above

said provisions of law, the police party went to the auditorium

and they found a conclave of 18 persons. Five of them were

occupying the dais; whereas 13 others were the audience which

was available in the hall. Incriminating seditious materials were

allegedly seized from the persons occupying the dais. All the 18

were apprehended; but crime was registered only against the 5

who were occupying the dais and the other 13 were

apprehended, but were released without initiating any

proceedings against them. It is alleged by the prosecution now

that all the 18 persons were conspirators and were engaged in

seditious activities. They were all members of SIMI – a banned

organization under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, it is

alleged. Though initially only 5 accused were shown as

offenders in the FIR, long later the respondents/petitioners were

arrested as accused 6 and 7 on 6/10/08. They were remanded to

custody long later on 29/10/08 under the impugned order. The

respondents herein i.e., A6 and A7 were ordered to be released

on bail subject to appropriate conditions by the learned Sessions

Judge. They are now on bail subject to such conditions imposed.

Crl.M.C. No. 4249 of 2008 -: 3 :-

3. The State has preferred this Crl.M.C. contending that

the release of accused 6 and 7 on bail is not justified at all. The

seriousness of the offence alleged was not taken note of by

learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge erred

grossly in coming to the conclusion that no satisfactory materials

have been collected against accused 6 and 7. In these

circumstances, it is prayed that invoking the jurisdiction under

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. the order granting bail to the respondents may

be quashed. The other accused arrested were released long

after their arrest and the Investigators were given time to make

progress in the investigation after their arrest. But so far as

the accused/respondents are concerned, they were arrested on

6/10/08 and were enlarged on bail on 29/10/08. The allegations

are serious. Sustained efforts to complete the investigation

have to be undertaken. Bail granted may, in these

circumstances, be cancelled, it is prayed.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents opposes the

application vehemently. The learned counsel for the accused/

respondents submits that stronger fare must be insisted to

justify the prayer for cancellation of bail. The learned counsel

for the respondents submits that except that the

Crl.M.C. No. 4249 of 2008 -: 4 :-

petitioners/accused also happened to be present at the meeting,

no incriminating materials whatsoever have been collected by

the Investigators against the petitioners/accused to justify their

initial arrest and, at any rate, to assail the order granting bail to

them. The respondents are willing to abide by any reasonable

terms. Their bail may not be cancelled. They have already

endured the trauma of unnecessary arrest and detention from

6/10/08 to 29/10/08. They may not be obliged to remain in

custody any longer, submits the counsel. The learned counsel

further submits that it may not be lost sight of from 15/8/06 to

6/10/08 no action was taken against the respondents.

5. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. There

are definite indications to suggest that some of the 18 persons

who had attended the meeting on 15/8/06 at Panayikulam have

later been allegedly involved in very serious crimes. They have

been arrested from out side the State. It is shown that those

persons have connections with the people carrying on seditious

activities. There are also indications to suggest that all the 18

who had collected there had gone there to take part in the

conclave. It was certainly not an open meeting. There are

indications also to suggest that the participants in the meeting

Crl.M.C. No. 4249 of 2008 -: 5 :-

on 15/8/06 had connections with the SIMI – a banned

organization which is now allegedly functioning under different

names. There are also indications to suggest that some

allegedly seditious materials were seized from the house of one

of the accused herein.

6. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. I am

unable to agree with the learned counsel for the respondents

that even the arrest was without any sufficient data. But,

however, I am not persuaded to agree that the respondents who

were not arrested from 15/8/06 to 6/10/08 and who have

remained in custody from 6/10/08 to 29/10/08 before they were

released as per the impugned order passed by the learned

Sessions Judge do deserve to be re-arrested and kept in custody.

It will not be inapposite in this context to mention that in the

remand report police custody of one of the two accused alone

was sought. He was given over to the custody for two days. He

was produced back after one day even before making use of the

entire period of police custody ordered by the learned

Magistrate. Considering the totality of circumstances, I find no

reason to justify the prayer to cancel the bail and take back the

respondents to custody.

Crl.M.C. No. 4249 of 2008 -: 6 :-

7. However, considering the nature of the crime and the

circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that modified/revised

conditions can and ought to be insisted to enable the

respondents to continue on bail.

8. In the result:

(a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed in part.

(b) The grant of bail to the respondents i.e., accused 6 and

7 by the learned Sessions Judge is upheld.

(c) But the conditions imposed are modified. The

petitioners shall be permitted to continue on bail on the

following revised terms and conditions:

(i) The respondents/accused 6 and 7 shall within a period

of 15 days from this date appear before the learned Magistrate

and execute fresh bonds for Rs.1 lakhs each with two solvent

sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned

Magistrate.

(ii) The respondents/petitioners/accused 6 and 7 shall

make themselves available for interrogation before the

Binanipuram Police Station on all Wednesdays and Sundays

between 10 a.n. and 12 noon until the final report is filed or

until further orders.

Crl.M.C. No. 4249 of 2008 -: 7 :-

(iii) The condition that the petitioners/respondents shall

not leave the Sessions Divisions of Ernakulam and Thrissur until

further orders without the prior permission of the learned

Magistrate shall continue to remain in force.

(iv) The petitioners/respondents shall make themselves

available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer at

his office as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in

writing to do so.

(d) If conditions (i) to (iv) are not complied with, the

learned Magistrate shall take necessary action against the

accused and their sureties to procure the presence of the

accused under Sec.446 Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

Crl.M.C. No. 4249 of 2008 -: 8 :-