IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3949 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NOP.179/2009 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION. ............ PETITIONER/ 2ND ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- KARTHIK A., S/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED 18 YEARS, THALIPPADAPPU, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRITTY POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO.3949 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 7th December 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the second accused in crime No.179/2009 of Kasaragod police station registered for the offences under Section 153(A), 307, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-II FIR. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that petitioner is a student of Higher Secondary school and evidenced by Annexure-I hall-ticket he had attended the examination on the very next day of the incident and Annexure-II FIR does not show that petitioner was involved in the incident and in any case, an offence under Section 153(A) is not attracted and hence he is to be granted the pre-arrest bail. 4. As identity of the person who attacked the injured were not disclosed in the FI statement, Crmc 3949/09 2 FIR does not show the name of any accused. Instead accused are shown as three persons who are known by sight. It is based on the investigation, petitioner is implicated as second accused. Whether petitioner was involved in the incident or not cannot be decided at this stage, as it is a matter for investigation. When FI statement shows that the injured had gone to the house of his classmate, who happened to be a Hindu. The injured is a Muslim, the classmate a Hindu. After the birthday celebration injured was returning. The assailants attacked him with the intention to cause his death, for the reason that he a Muslim had attended the function of a Hindu classmate. In the circumstances of the case, I cannot agree with the submission that offence under Section 153(A) is not attracted. Petitioner is not entitled to get the FIR quashed at this stage. It is for the police to investigate whether petitioner was one of the assailants. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner may be permitted to surrender before the learned Magistrate and he be released on bail. 5. When the accused surrenders, it is for the Magistrate to consider whether he is to be Crmc 3949/09 3 released on bail on considering the nature of the offences alleged and the materials against accused. I do not believe that Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or the decisions of this court or that Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. In such circumstances no direction is warranted. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.