IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7882 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.556/2011 OF PALLIKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4: ---------------------------------------- 1. RIYA JALEEL, S/O.JALEEL, RIYAS MANZIL, THOLOOR, MADAVOOR VILLAGE. 2. NISHAD, S/O.SHIHABUDEEN, NISHAD MANZIL, KATTUPUTHUSSERY, PALLICKAL VILLAGE. 3. AYOOB, S/O.SALAHUDEEN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VALIYAKUNNU, THOLOOR, MADAVOOR VILLAGE. 4. HAZIM, S/O.HASSAN KUNJU, HASEENA MANZIL, THOLOOR, KUDAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.PRADEEP SRI.U.NAZEER RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.7882 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.556 of 2011 of Pallikal Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following : On 31.8.2011 at 11 A.M., while the de facto complainant and his friend were going in car to see the child of the de facto complainant in the house of a relative of the de facto complainant's wife, his car was intercepted by a group of people and the de facto complainant and his friend were manhandled with iron rods, swords and other dangerous weapons. The de facto BA 7882/11 2 complainant sustained serious injuries. 4. The petitioners were arrested on 21.9.2011 and they were remanded to judicial custody on 22.9.2011. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant was the aggressor and he wanted to take away his child who has not attained even one year of age. His attempt was foiled by the inmates of the house. The people in the locality gathered there and the de facto complainant was driven away. On informing the police, the police took him to custody. The de facto complainant escaped from the police custody, went to a distant place, admitted in a hospital and the FIR was registered. It is submitted that the case is a foisted one and no such incident as alleged had happened. The counsel also contended that on the 9th day of the birth of the child of the de facto complainant, the child was forcibly taken by the de facto complainant from the custody of the child's mother. Due to the intervention of the police, the mother got back the child from him. It is submitted that all these circumstances would indicate that the petitioners have not committed the offence and that the case BA 7882/11 3 is a foisted one. 6. The de facto complainant sustained serious injuries. The prosecution case is that he was attacked by the petitioners and others. The case put forward by the petitioners in defence is a matter to be considered at the time of trial. There are disputed questions of fact. Those disputed questions cannot be decided in a Bail Application. The disputed questions of fact are to be decided after taking evidence. Prima facie, the facts and circumstances of the case would reveal the complicity of the petitioners in the offence. The investigation is in progress. If the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. It is also likely that the petitioners may influence or intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl