IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 28643 of 2008(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- SHIHABUDHEEN, S/O. SAIDUKUNJU, AGED 28 YEARS, SHIHAN MANZIL, KADUVINAL MURI, VALLIKKUNNAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SRI. HARIDAS, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALLIKKUNNAM. 2. SRI. JOSE, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA. 3. SRI. PATHROS, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME DETACHMENT, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 28643 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.265/2007 of Vallikunnam Police Station. This writ petition is filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate directions against the police not to threaten him when he comes to reside in his house and not to compel him to stay out of Alleppey District. The petitioner is accused of having joined an unlawful assembly, which using deadly weapons brutally murdered one Mr.Vinod at about 7.30 p.m. on 23-12-2007. The said incident sparked off a communal violence in the area. The petitioner obtained regular bail from this Court subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was “ the petitioner shall not enter the jurisdiction of Alleppey District and he shall report before the Superintendent of Police of the District in WPC.28643/2008 -2- which he proposes to reside between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays”. The petitioner submits, other accused involved in the said crime were granted bail by the Sessions Court with more liberal conditions. They were not asked to remain out of Alleppey District. So, he moved this Court for vacating that condition. The said Criminal Miscellaneous Application was disposed of with the following direction: “ The first condition imposed by this Court as per order in B.A.No.2436/2008 dated 18-04-08 is modified and he is directed to report before the Investigating Officer in Crime No.265/2007 of Vallikunnam Police Station between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. on all Wednesdays.” 2. The petitioner submits in view of the said order, the condition to remain outside Alleppey District stands vacated. It cannot be interpreted as a condition to remain outside Alleppey District and come to Alleppey District only for the purpose of reporting before the investigating officer, it is submitted. But the police officers, respondents 1 to 3 maintain the opposite view. According to them, the condition to reside outside Alleppey District is even now remaining in force. What is modified is the place where he should report. Therefore, if the petitioner tries WPC.28643/2008 -3- to reside in his house, that will amount to violation of the bail condition. The allegations of the petitioner regarding threat, violence etc.are denied by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in his statement filed before this Court. It is pointed out that the petitioner is the Convener and Organizer of the Organization involved in the above incident in which Mr.Vinod was murdered. Several accused are yet to be arrested. Some of them are absconding from the date of occurrence. Only to help those persons with ulterior motive, this writ petition is filed, it is submitted. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the interpretation advanced by the police does not appeal to common sense. The petitioner moved the application for modification to enter his home District and not for coming to that District only for signing before the Investigating Officer. It is also submitted that the police cannot threaten the petitioner. If the petitioner is violating the bail conditions, the remedy of the police is to move this Court to cancel his bail. 4. As mentioned earlier, the respondents are denying the allegations of the petitioner regarding threat, intimidation etc. WPC.28643/2008 -4- But they assert that the petitioner is not entitled to enter Alleppey District. 5. We are not inclined to subscribe to the view of the petitioner that the view taken by the police is one, which no man in his senses will take. We hold that it is a plausible view on the facts. The police have denied all the allegations of the petitioner in these proceedings. We cannot go further into the matter by taking evidence etc. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the police, he has got the ordinary remedies available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure. If no action is taken within a reasonable time limit on Ext.P3 petition filed by the petitioner before the 4th respondent, the petitioner can pursue the remedies available to him under law to redress his grievance. Subject to that right, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/- ks. M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE WPC.28643/2008 -5- ks.