Disposed

Sadik Ali v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2016Bail Appl./4379/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposes of pre-arrest bail applications relating to a protest turning violent against journalists. Directs surrender for interrogation and remands consideration of bail to the subordinate court, doubting the sustainability of serious charges.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to surrender for interrogation; bail application disposed pending regular bail decision by Magistrate.

Sadik Ali Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2016/10TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4379 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 242/2016 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

SADIK ALI S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 27 YEARS, ANANGADAN HOUSE, PARAPOOR P.O., KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT :

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOZHI-682031.

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676503.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C. RASHEED

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶15

ON 01-07-2016, ALONG WITH BA. 4609/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

P.UBAID, J.

¶18

- - - - B.A.Nos. 4379 and 4609 of 2016

¶19

- - - - Dated this the 01^st day of July, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioners in these two applications are two among the many accused including so many identifiable persons in Crime No. 242 of 2016 of the Kottakkal Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 427 and 452 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Now, investigation in the crime is proceeding under Section 354 of IPC also. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail on the apprehension of arrest by the Police. These petitioners are said to be two among the so many identifiable persons mentioned in the complaint.

¶22

The incident alleged in this case happened in connection with a motor accident on the National Highway in front of the Mathrubhumi Press at Kottakkal. A gang of persons assembled there in protest, on the public road. When the journalists, reporters and photographers of the

¶23

B.A.Nos. 4379 and 4609 of 2016

¶24

-2-

¶25

Mathrubhumi press reached there, and proceeded to take photographs of the scene of incident and the protesters, they were severely attacked by the people who gathered there, and when the reporters and photographers took refuge in the press, the assailants trespassed into the Mathrubhumi press also, committed some acts of vandalism and mischief there, and assaulted some members of staff including some ladies.

¶26

These petitioners have raised serious questions including the question of identity, and also the sustainability of prosecution under Sections 354 and 452 of IPC. In the nature of the allegations, I feel it appropriate to direct the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer, and seek regular bail from the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. No doubt, the prosecution will have to convince the learned Magistrate satisfactorily as to how these two petitioners were identified as two among the assailants. On a reading of the complaint in this case, I find

¶27

B.A.Nos. 4379 and 4609 of 2016

¶28

-3-

¶29

nothing to attract Section 452 of IPC or Section 354 of IPC. It appears that things were subsequently added. It is not known how or on what material, such things were added by the Investigating Officer during investigation. For a prosecution under Section 452 of IPC, there must be house trespass with preparation to cause hurt. The learned Magistrate will have to examine the case records and see whether this is a case of house trespass with preparation to cause hurt, or only a case of house trespass with intention to cause hurt. If what is made out is only house trespass with intention to cause hurt, it will come only under Section 451 of IPC, which is bailable under the law.

¶30

To proceed under Section 354 of IPC, the Investigating Officer relies on the statements given by some lady staff of the Mathrubhumi press. The complaint in fact does not contain any such allegations that any lady was molested or outraged by any of the assailants. Even the statements given by the ladies will show that some of the

¶31

B.A.Nos. 4379 and 4609 of 2016

¶32

-4-

¶33

assailants only made an attempt to assault them. It is not known whether they were actually assaulted, or whether any injury was sustained by any of these ladies. It is well settled that a mere assault on a woman will not by itself come under Section 354 of IPC. This legal issue will have to be seriously considered by the learned magistrate in taking decision on the request for bail.

¶34

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that some 17 persons have been identified so far. It is not known how they were identified. Anyway, the learned Magistrate will have to examine the whole case records, and see whether the necessary elements are there for a prosecution under Sections 452 and 354 of IPC. The other offences are bailable under the law. Let proper and legal decision be taken by the learned Magistrate on the request for bail.

¶35

In the result, these applications for bail are disposed of as follows:

¶36

B.A.Nos. 4379 and 4609 of 2016

¶37

-5-

¶38

a) The petitioners will surrender before the

¶39

Investigating Officer between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. on

¶40

any day within ten days from this date for the purpose of interrogation as part of investigation.

¶41

b) After necessary interrogation, the Investigating Officer will produce the petitioners before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction by 4 p.m. on the date of arrest itself.

¶42

c) In case application for regular bail is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be judiciously considered and decided by the learned Magistrate on the same day on merits, on a consideration of all the relevant aspects involved in the matter, and also having the observations made made by me, in mind.

Sd/-

P.UBAID

JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

Sadik Ali v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadik Ali v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaffer Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Alias Ethakka Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Faijas.v.v Vs State of Kerala

Sajid Vs State of Kerala

Benny Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala