Hon'ble Justice N.K. Balakrishnan dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by the 4th and 5th accused alleging they were rescued from a hospital while officials were under surveillance, holding they were parties to the unlawful act.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioners not entitled to bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/24TH JYAISHTA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 3610 of 2012 () -----------------------------CRIME NO.660/11 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR
ACCUSED(S)/ACCUSED 4 AND 5:
1. SHEREEF.A.G. S/O.MOHAMMEDKUNHI, AG HOUSE, P.O.PETTIKUNDU KASARGOD DISTRICT.
2. MUSTAFA.A. S/O.KUNHABDULLA, ANJILLATH, P.O.PETTIKUNDU KASARGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE
COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION,PAYYANNUR-670307.
2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BKA
N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
B.A. No: 3610 of 2012
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2012
O R D E R
Petitioners are the 4th and 5th accused in Crime
No:666/2011 of Payyannur Police Station. The offences alleged are under sections 143, 147, 353 and 225 r/w 149 of IPC. Apprehending arrest this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.
B.A. No: 3610/2012
-2-
According to the petitioners they were actually discharged from the hospital. There was dereliction of duty on the part of the Police officer. It was also argued that when the application was filed by the petitioner for getting bail in the other crime no contention was raised that the petitioners were under surveillance of Police etc. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners were undergoing treatment in the hospital. Police officers were under Surveillance duty. The incident took place at about 10.45 pm. The contention that there was no incident as alleged by the prosecution cannot be accepted. The contention that the petitioners cannot be found fault with for having rescued by other accused, cannot be accepted. It is submitted that the petitioner by showing force and preventing the police officials from discharging their duties rescued the petitioner. The petitioners were parties to the said unlawful act, the prosecution contends.
B.A. No: 3610/2012
-3-
Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to
the petitioners. It is hence dismissed.
Sd/N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge
jjj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the 4th and 5th accused apprehending arrest for obstruction of police duty?
Whether the petitions were unjustly rescued from a hospital by other accused during police surveillance?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SHEREEF.A.G.
MUSTAFA.A.
N.K. Balakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
