IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4774 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.236/08 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1,3,5,6,7 & 8 -------------------------------------- 1. M. MUHAMMEDALI, S/O.ABDU HAJI, AGED 35, RESIDING AT KUNDANKOOLANTAVIDA, P.O. PARAMBAYI, THELLICHERY TALUK. 2. V.C. RASIK, S/O. AHAMMED, AGED 27, RAZIK MANZIL, P.O. NETTUR. 3. KOOLINTAVIDA ASHRAF, S/O. EBRAHIM, AGED 32, KOOLINTAVIDA HOUSE, P.O. NETTUR. 4. KOOLINTAVIDA NASHIF, S/O. KHADER, AGED 20, RESIDING AT KOLLINTAVIDA HOUSE, P.O. NETTUR. 5. KOOLINTAVIDA SANEEF, S/O. ALI, AGED 20, RESIDING AT KOOLINTAVIDA HOUSE, NETTUR. 6. KOOLINTAVIDA NOUFAL, S/O. KHADER, RESIDING AT KOOLINTAVIDA HOUSE, P.O. NETTUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 4774 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 367, 506(ii) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. They were armed with deadly weapons. They also committed rioting and also other offences and they assaulted de facto complainant and caused injury to him, tied his legs with his own dhoti, and abducted him in a Maruti van. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is an absolutely false case foisted against the petitioner. According to him, the de facto complainant was having an affair with one Sajina, while working in the Nursery run by the de facto complainant. Thereafter, Sajina got married and, it appears that, they were carrying on their relationship, even after the marriage. But, the first petitioner wanted the de facto complainant to stop such activities. But he challenged the first petitioner and others who intervened that he would go to the house of said Sajina and she will come out with him if he [B.A.No.4774/08] 2 called at any time and stating that he went to the house of Sajina. When he reached near the house, the people of locality apprehended him and he was handed over to the police. Thereafter, a false complaint is lodged against the petitioner, alleging motive for the crime as political rivalry. 4. There is only a bare allegation that there is a political rivalry, it is submitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that de facto complainant has not sustained any serious injuries on the body and it is also highly unlikely that if the intention of the petitioners were to kidnap de facto complainant by tying his hands and legs the accused would not have made some preparations. Instead, they used his own dhoti to commit the offence. For these reasons, the story of the prosecution, according to learned counsel for petitioner, is totally unbelievable. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case diary reveals that the de facto complainant was hospitalised. He had injuries on several parties of his body, including his head. This details are recorded in the bottom of the first information statement itself, which were recorded from the hospital.. It is also submitted that in the first information statement itself it is mentioned that the de facto complainant is a worker of PDP (a political party) whereas the petitioners are workers of NDF (which is a rival political party). It is also pointed out that there is absolutely no [B.A.No.4774/08] 3 material to show that the incident involving Sajina had ever occurred. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that a specific defence is set up by the petitioner, but the probability of the same could not be established at this stage for want of materials. Nothing was pointed out to indicate that an incident of the nature would have happened. It is not possible to infer from the records available that any incident as alleged happened at least near the house of Sajina. There is also no materials to indicate that the petitioners or any of the relatives of Sajina were aggrieved by the activities of the de facto complainant at least even after the marriage of Sajina. In the above circumstances, in an offence of this nature, on the nature of the allegations made, I am not satisfied that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. But it is made clear that none of the observations made in this order regarding the defence will prejudice the right of the petitioner to take up defence at a later stage and during trial. It is made clear that if sufficient materials are available the defence case has to be appreciated, on the basis of such materials, but at this stage there is nothing to support the defence case. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.