IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6645 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.431/2008 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1,3,4,5,6,7,9 & 10:- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AMARAYIL SUFIYAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. ALAVIKUTTY HAJI, AMARAYIL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM, KUTTIPPURAM DESOM,TIRUR TALUK. 2. PALLIPPURAM YOOSAF HAJI, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. KUNHALI HAJI, PALLIPPURAM HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM, KUTTIPURAM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 3. PALLIPPURAM NAVAS, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. YOOSAF HAJI, PALLIPPURAM HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM, KUTTIPPURAM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 4. PALLIPPURAM IBRAHANHIMKUTTY, AGED 32 YEARS,S/O. KUNHALI HAJI, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM, KUTTIPPURAM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 5. THAYYILSAIDALAVI HAJI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. ENU THAYYIL HOUSE, KOOTTAKKAL AMSOM, KUTTIPPURAM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 6. MUJEEB RAHMAN, S/O. MOHAMMED, PALLIPPURAM HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM, KUTTIPURAM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 7. ABDU HAJI, S/O. MAMMU HAJI, PALLIPPURAM HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM, KUTTIPURAM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 8. MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O. ENU THAYYIL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM, KUTTIPPURAM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON BA NO.6645/08 -2- RESPONDENT(S): (DEFACTO COMPLAINT AND STATE):- ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6645 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. According to prosecution, there was a quarrel between two factions in a mosque relating to a dispute as to who should be the president of the mosque committee etc. Defacto complainant was the president of the mosque committee for a long time and some people wanted a change in the same. There was a quarrel relating to this and defacto complainant and others were attacked by the petitioners and other accused (total ten in number) using knife, iron rod etc. Two persons were murdered and four were injured in the incident. All the injured were hospitalised. 3. Petitioners are accused nos. 1, 3 to 7, 9 and 10 respectively. A1, A3, A4, A5 and A7 were arrested on 4.9.2008. A6 and A9 were arrested on 6.10.2008. A10 was arrested on 30.8.2008. The recovery of weapons allegedly used by them is BA No.6645/08 2 already effected, it is submitted. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there is a counter case in which some of the accused were injured, but, accused in the counter case are not so far arrested by the police. The incident happened while the accused was taking drinking water inside the mosque as revealed from the FIR in the counter case. But, as per the FIR in the present case, the quarrel happened when the defacto complainant and others came out of the mosque. 4. It is also pointed out that while the injured were taken to the hospital, the car was intercepted and some weapons were seen in the car and a crime was also registered under Section 435 IPC. This will indicate that the defacto complainant and others were carrying weapons. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that this case involves a quarrel between two factions in which two persons succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident. Four persons were injured and they were hospitalised. Deadly weapons were used for the offence by both sides and another case was also registered. But, it is not correct to say that the police was inactive in not arresting the BA No.6645/08 3 accused in the counter case. They were injured and hospitalised. The submission made by petitioners counsel itself reveals that in connection with this incident both sides were injured. If the petitioners are released on bail, it is likely that there will be more bloodshed. It is also submitted that some of the accused are yet to be arrested in this case and some more weapons are to be recovered. If at this stage of investigation, petitioners are released on bail, it will adversely affect the investigation, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, it appears that there were attacks by two groups against each other and both were using weapons at the premises of a mosque. I am also satisfied that it is likely that there could be more incidents and clashes between the factions, if the petitioners are released on bail. If at this stage, bail is granted, I am also satisfied that it will adversely affect the investigation. In the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl