Kerala High CourtHaneefa vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2016Author:P.UbaidBench:P.UbaidIN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT:

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

     WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2016/4TH JYAISHTA, 1938

                 Bail Appl..No. 3780 of 2016 ()
                 -------------------------------

    CRIME NO. 343/2016 OF THANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM.
                           ..........


PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:
----------------------------

          1. HANEEFA, S/O.PAREETH,
            AGED 35 YEARS, KOYASSANTEPURACKAL,
            THANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 302.

          2. SHAMSU, S/O. KUNJAVA,
            AGED 36 YEARS, KUTTIRAYINTEPURACKAL,
            THANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 302.

          3. BASHEER, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 42 YEARS,
            KALATT HOUSE, THANUR P.O.,
             MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 302.

          4. FAIJAS, S/O. HAMSA, AGED 33 YEARS,
            PAREETHINTEPURACKAL, THANUR P.O.,
            MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 302.

          5. CHAKKARAKARAN SUBAIR,S/O.HAMSAKOYA,
            AGED 43 YEARS, KUTTUSANTEPURACKAL,
            THANUR P.O.,MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 302.

            BY ADVS.SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
                    SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------

           STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
           THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
            THANUR POLICE STATION -
            CR.NO.343/2016 OF THANUR POLICE STATION),
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.


             BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA.R

       THIS BAIL APPLICATION  HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
       ON  25-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
       FOLLOWING:
mbr/



                            P.UBAID, J.
        ============================
                    B.A.No.3780 of 2016
        ============================
             Dated this the 25th day of May, 2016

                            ORDERThe petitioners herein seeks pre arrest bail underSection 438of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the

apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in

connection with Crime No.343 of 2016 of the Thanur

Police Station, registered underSections 143,147,148,341,323,354,307,452and427read withSection 149of the Indian Penal Code.2.   The prosecution case is that at about 3 p.m. on

23.04.2016 these petitioners and some other persons,

forming a political gang, trespassed into the house of the

defacto complainant, being armed with weapons,

assaulted her and inflicted injuries on her body with

weapons, and when her husband intervened in the

incident, he was also assaulted by the petitioners, and

he also sustained serious injuries in the alleged incident.B.A.No.3780 of 2016                 2The Case Diary shows that the weapons are not yet

recovered by the police. The wound certificate shows

that the complainant Fassila had sustained contusions

over the right shoulder, and on her right scapular region,

and her husband Sidhiqu had sustained lacerted wounds

of 3x2x1 cms and 5x1x1 cms respectively over the scalp,

a contusion with the aberration of 10x2 cm over the left

forearm, and contusions over the right forearm, left

shoulder, right side of chest and left foot. He was initially

brought at the local hospital from where he was referred

to the Medical College Hospital for expert management.

The nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant

and her husband compel this Court not to exercise the

discretion underSection 438Cr.P.C. in favour of the

petitioners. They will have to be interrogated in custody

by the police as part of investigation, and it is necessary

for the recovery of weapons also.3.       This application for pre arrest bail is opposed

by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground thatB.A.No.3780 of 2016                  3investigation is at the preliminary stage, that custodial

interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary as

part of investigation, and that, if the accused are now

released, it will definitely obstruct the proper and

effective investigation.4.         On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the

materials including the case diary and the police report, I

find that some more things remain to be done by the

police as part of investigation, and some more witnesses

remain to be questioned. I find that this process will be

obstructed, if the petitioners are granted pre arrest bail.

I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is

absolutely necessary as part of investigation in this case,

and I find that the accused will obstruct the interrogation

of the material witnesses, or they will influence or

intimidate the witnesses if they are now granted pre

arrest bail. However, if the petitioners so opt, they can

surrender before the investigating officer or before the

learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. After necessaryB.A.No.3780 of 2016                        4interrogation, the question whether the accused can be

granted regular bail, can well be considered by the

learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. In the particular

facts and circumstances of the case including the

seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged, and also

the stage of investigation, I find that this is not a fit case

where the discretionary relief of pre arrest bail can be

granted.In the result, this application for anticipatory

bail is dismissed.Sd/-P.UBAID
                                                   JUDGE
rkj
                      //TRUE COPY//


                                   P.A. TO JUDGE