IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3347 of 2009 CRIME NO.152 OF 2009 OF KUMBALA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 3 - 7 --------------------------------------------------- 1. HANEEF SUNNADA, AGED 38, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, P.O.CHIPPAR, VIA UPPALA, KASARAGOD. 2. ABBAS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 40, MARKATHADKKA HOUSE, P.O.PERIPPADAVU, VIA UPPALA, KASARAGOD. 3. UMMER B., AGED 34, S/O. ABDULLA, BANDIYODE HOUSE, P.O.MANGALPADY, (VIA)UPPALA, KASARGODE. 4. ABDULLA B.M., AGED 38, S/O. MOHAMMED, ADKKA HOUSE, P.O.MANGALPADY, VIA KASARGODE. 5. K.V.YOOSUF, AGED 34, S/O. MOIDEENKUNHI, BOMBRANA P.O., VIA KUMBALA, KASARAGODE. 6. BADURUDEEN P.V., AGED 44, S/O.P.V.MOHAMMED HAJI, DASSOQE MOHAL, UJANPADEVE, P.O.PUTTIGA, VIA KUMBALA, KASARGODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARGODE POLICE STATION. 2. STATE, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON 24/06/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3347 OF 2009 E ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th June, 2009 O R D E R Accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Crime No.152 of 2009 of Kumbla Police Station have filed this Bail Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 365, 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 5.6.2009 at 10 AM the accused persons abducted the de facto complainant in a Swift car, took the de facto complainant to the house of accused No.7 and confined him there. Thereafter he was taken to Kasaragod and his bank accounts were verified. The de facto complainant was again taken to a place called Posodigude and he was beaten up and kicked. The accused persons threatened to kill the de facto complainant. He was again taken to Kasaragod and was confined in a lodge. The accused got the signature of the de facto complainant in several papers. It is also stated in the First Information Statement that the accused persons were of the view that the B.A. NO. 3347 OF 2009 :: 2 :: de facto complainant owes a sum of Rupees Fifty one lakhs to the second accused. It is also stated therein that the de facto complainant stated that one Ismail of Seethangoli owes him Rupees Ten lakhs and that he would get that amount. When the de facto complainant was taken to Seethangoli, he escaped. The people who gathered there informed the police and the police party reached there. 4. Sri.T.G.Rajendran, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the ingredients of Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code are not established and that the petitioners are entitled to get anticipatory bail. 5. I have gone through the Case Diary File. It is not proper to arrive at a finding on the question raised by Advocate T.G.Rajendran since any finding or observation on the merits of the case at this stage would cause prejudice either to the prosecution or to the accused. 6. The de facto complainant has filed an affidavit. Advocate Sri.Ramesan Nambisan appeared for him and relied on several decisions in support of his contention that the de facto complainant can be permitted to oppose the application for anticipatory bail. It is stated by the de facto complainant in the affidavit that the police did not properly record B.A. NO. 3347 OF 2009 :: 3 :: the First Information Statement and that he had made a petition dated 15.6.2009 to the District Superintendent of Police in which all the facts are narrated correctly. In the petition to the District Superintendent of Police, it is stated that the accused persons had really planned to kill him by taking him to a lonely place called Posodi. The accused decided to take the de facto complainant to Posodi, via., Seethangoli. While they reached Seethangoli, the de facto complainant ran away and the people of the locality rescued him. The de facto complainant alleged in the petition dated 15.6.2009 that the First Information Statement was not properly recorded by the Kumbla Police. It is his further case that the persons who rescued him at Seethangoli were not questioned by the police. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the stage of investigation, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is liable to be dismissed. 8. On a perusal of the Case Diary, it is seen that the investigation is not being proceeded with in a proper direction. No investigation appears to have been made at the places where the de facto complainant was allegedly taken by the accused. After 10.6.2009, nothing appears to B.A. NO. 3347 OF 2009 :: 4 :: have been done by the investigating officer in the matter of investigation of the case. 9. The Case Diary File shows that on 9.6.2009, the de facto complainant had filed a petition before the Station House Officer, Kumbla stating that on 7.6.2009, the fourth accused forcibly entered into the house of the de facto complainant and threatened him and his mother showing a knife and took away several documents. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the District Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod to supervise the investigation of Crime No.152 of 2009 of Kumbla Police Station to ensure a proper investigation of the case. With the above directions, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/