IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4249 of 2008() ------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.1899/08 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. PBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. SHAMEER, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. YUSAF, KARUKAPADATH HOUSE, ERIYADU AMSOM DESOM, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. ABDUL KAKKIM K.M., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, KADAKATHANGATHU HOUSE, JAOOAK VAZAR, AZHIKKODE VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SALIM V.S. FOR R1 & R2 SRI.S.SHANAVAS FOR R1 & R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 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 :-