ABDUL RAHOOF P v. STATE OF KERALA

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1566 OF 2024`** ``` CRIME NO.965/2023 OF VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.9:`** ``` ABDUL RAHOOF P AGED 24 YEARS S/O MUHAMMEDALI PULLATT PULLATT HOUSE, CHERUR-PO KANNAMANGALAM, VENGARA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676304 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.VENUGOPAL SRILAKSHMI T.S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER VENGARA POLICE STATION, VENGARA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676304 BY ADV. SMT. NEEMA T. V. – SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 07.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1566 OF 2024 ``` ## **C.S.DIAS, J.** **---------------------------------------------------B.A.No. 1566 of 2024 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of March, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Code’), for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the 9[th] accused in Crime No.965/2023 of the Vengara Police Station, Malappuram, registered against the accused (eight in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short). 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that: around 10.15 hours on 27.11.2023, the accused, with a ``` 3 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1566 OF 2024 ``` common intention, intercepted a tipper lorry and the 1st accused pushed the defacto complainant and attacked him with an iron rod. The 4th accused stamped the defacto complainant on his back and when he fell on the ground, the 2nd accused also stamped him on his chest. When the brothers of the defacto complainant and the relatives attempted to intervene, the accused 1 to 9 beat them also. At the said point, the 5th accused drove a jeep towards the defacto complainant. It is only because one of the injured moved away from the jeep, he did not lose his life. Thus, the accused have committed the offence. 4. Heard; Sri. P. Venugopal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T. V., the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the ``` 4 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1566 OF 2024`** crime. There is a case and counter case in respect of the very same incident. Section 308 of the IPC has been deliberately incorporated to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. At any rate, the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary. The wound certificate would reveal that the injured has not sustained any grievous injuries as projected by the Investigating Officer. Hence, the bail application may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that there is a counter case in respect of the very same incident registered by the same Police. 7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly after going through Annexure 3 series wound certificate and also ``` 5 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1566 OF 2024`** taking note of the fact that there is a counter case registered against the defacto complainant and friends, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary. Therefore, I am inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail, but subject to the condition that the petitioner co-operates with the investigation and abides by the conditions laid down by this Court. Thus, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today; ii) In the event of the petitioner’s arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce him before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself; iii) On such production, the jurisdictional court ``` 6 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1566 OF 2024`** shall release the petitioner on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation as and when the Investigating Officer directs; v) The petitioner shall not intimidate witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner; vi) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail; vii) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law; ``` 7 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1566 OF 2024`** viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below; ix) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663]** . **Sd/C.S. DIAS JUDGE** BR ``` 8 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1566 OF 2024`** ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1566/2024`** ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure 1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-01-2024 MADE IN B.A.NO.11370/2023 ``` ``` RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL ```