Allowed

Muhammed Nazim K.S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Oct 2020Bail Appl./1960/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-member accused petitioners, students of Law College, sought anticipatory bail for offences relating to a violent student clash. The High Court allowed the bail, noting their youth and non-gang nature, but imposed stringent conditions regarding conduct and police interaction.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on execution of bond for ₹50,000 each with two sureties, subject to strict conditions including appearrance before investigating officer twice a week.

Muhammed Nazim K.S Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 9TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1960 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 483/2020 DATED 03-032020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

CRIME NO.139/2020 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station , Ernakulam

¶8

PETITIONERS/A1 & A6:

¶9

1 MUHAMMED NAZIM K.S AGED 19 YEARS S/O. SHAMSUDHEEN, KALLUNKAL HOUSE, THAIKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA-683 106

¶10

2 SIDHARTH .T., AGED 19 YEARS S/O. MOHANADASAN, MELEPALAYAKODE HOUSE, MORAYOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA KUM.K.S.SREEREKHA SRI.NABIL KHADER

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682 031

¶14

*ADDL.R2 JAIN JASON MATHEW, AGED 23 YEARS S/O JAISON MATHEW, POTTAKKAL HOUSE, NEAR HANNA-ROCK PRODUCTS, CRESSURE, MEENKUNNAM KARA, MARADI V, MOOVATTUPUZHA-686672, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

¶16

BA 1960/2020

¶17

*ADDL.R3 ANTONY THOMAS, AGED 22 YEARS S/O THOMAS, KALAYIL HOUSE, VALLASSERY, KADUTHURUTHY PO, KOTTAYAM-686604.

¶18

*ADDL.R4 MEHANAZ P. MUHAMMED, AGED 21 YEARS D/O MUHAMMED, PAYIKKATTU HOUSE, KUTHIATHODE P.O, CHERTHALA-688533, ALAPPUZHA.

¶19

ADDL.R5 ROY ANTONY, AGED 23 YEARS S/O ANTONY CHACKO, THEKKANATH HOUSE, KIZHUPILLIKARA P.O, THRISSUR-680702.

¶20

**ADDL.R6 ROHIT S. AGED 22 YEARS S/O R.SHAJI, THOOMPUNKAL (H), PALLURUTHY NADA, PALLURUTHY P.O, KOCHI-682006.

¶21

**ADDL.R7 HADI HASSAN K.T. AGED 21 YEARS S/O SANCER HASAN K.T, KANHIROTHODI HOUSE, CHENNAMANGALLUR P.O, MUKKAM-673602.

¶22

*ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09/09/2020 IN CRL.MA 1/2020.

¶23

**ADDITIONAL RESPONDETNS 6 & 7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09/09/2020 IN CRL.MA 2/2020.

¶24

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN FOR ADDL. RESPONDENTS

¶25

ADV. SRI.V.VINAY SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR.PP

¶26

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 9.9.2020, THE COURT ON 01.10.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 1960/2020

ASHOK MENON, J.

BA No.1960 of 2020

Dated this the 1^st day of October, 2020

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶34

Applicants are accused Nos.1 and 6 in Crime No.139/2020 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam. They stand accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶35

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicants and the other co-accused totalling 13, belong to SFI studying in the Ernakulam Law College. On 14.2.2020 at about 1:30 PM, the accused as members of an unlawful assembly and in

¶36

the prosecution of common object of the assembly to assault

¶37

¶38

BA 1960/2020

¶39

the de facto complainant and his friends, who are all members of the KSU, committed riot armed with deadly weapons like iron rod, cricket bats and sticks, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and the other injured persons, who have got themselves impleaded as additional respondents 2 to 7, and assaulted them with hands and also with the aforesaid deadly weapons causing hurt and grievous hurt to them.

¶40

On the basis of the First Information Statement, the aforesaid Crime No.139 of 2020 was registered at the Central Police Station, Ernakulam against the accused including the applicants. Annexure-A1 is the F.I.R. The applicants would submit that they are not involved in the alleged assault and that their names have been included falsely out of political rivalry. They have been named as accused, only because they are the leaders of the SFI in the College. It is stated that the applicants and the other members of the SFI had won the College elections and they had sought the Principal's

¶41

¶42

BA 1960/2020

¶43

permission to celebrate the Valentine's Day in the College campus. Annexure-A2 is the permission sought by the Chairman of the College Union. The members of the KSU, including the de facto complainant and his friends, wanted to create nuisance and disturb the peaceful atmosphere of the

¶44

College. Coming to know about their intentions, the teachers and the Principal had already warned them. Ignoring all such warnings, the de facto complainant and his men entered the College campus and attempted to create nuisance and obstruction to the program which was being held in the College. They were armed with the deadly weapons like iron rod, cricket bats, stumps and sticks. The applicants and the members of their College union attempted to prevent the de facto complainant and his men which resulted in a scuffle between the members of the SFI and KSU. A counter case was also registered against the de facto complainant and others as Crime No.140/2020, the F.I.R of which is at Annexure-A3. The

¶45

¶46

BA 1960/2020

¶47

weapons were all brought into the College campus by the de facto complainant and his friends. In the scuffle that ensued, injuries were sustained by members of both the SFI and KSU. The specific allegations against the applicants were made by the de facto complainant with ulterior motives and political rivalry. All the weapons allegedly used by the applicants and their rivals were seized from the college campus by the investigating officer. The applicants and the other co-accused, apprehending arrest, had filed petitions before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam seeking pre-arrest bail. Vide common order dated 03.03.2020, at Annexure-A4, bail was granted to all the accused, except the applicants herein. Their bail was rejected for the reason that they are involved in another Crime, in which they were granted anticipatory bail. Considering their antecedents of having been involved in another Crime of similar nature, the learned Sessions Judge rejected their

¶48

¶49

BA 1960/2020

¶50

application for bail. Hence, the applicants have approached this Court for indulgence.

¶51

The de facto complainant and the other injured in this Crime, got themselves impleaded as additional respondents 2 to 7 and filed an objection to this application seeking bail. They have produced the wound certificates pertaining to the injuries sustained by them as Annexures-R2 (II) to (V) and (VII) to (XII). Most of the injured sustained grievous hurt. The 4^th respondent is a lady and even she was not spared by the accused and sustained grievous hurt. The applicants also had outraged her modesty, but because of their influence and political clout, offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C was not incorporated in the F.I.R. It is contended by them that the applicants are persons having criminal antecedents and are habitual offenders. The 1^st applicant is involved in Crime No.3249/2017 for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 324 I.P.C, while the 2^nd applicant is an

¶52

¶53

BA 1960/2020

¶54

accused in Crime No.167/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 324, and 308 read with Section 149 I.P.C and also in Crime No.2936/2016 for an offence punishable under Section 294(b) I.P.C. Both the applicants were accused in Crime No.2397/2018 for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 I.P.C, and were also granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl. MC No.2206/2018 vide Annexure-R(I) on conditions . Despite that, the applicants got involved in the present crime. The learned Sessions Judge refused to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicants mainly for the reason that they have criminal antecedents and in case they are released on bail, there is every possibility that they may get involved in similar offences. The party respondents state that the applicants may not be granted bail considering the abovementioned reasons.

¶55

BA 1960/2020

¶56

¶57

Heard Shri K. R. Vinod, the learned counsel

¶58

appearing for the applicants and Shri V.Vinay, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and the injured additional respondents. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, Sri C.N. Prabhakaran was also heard. The records produced on either sides were produced.

¶59

The learned Sessions Judge had refused anticipatory bail to the applicants for the reason that they were involved in another Crime in which they were already released on bail. It is considering the criminal proclivity of the applicants to get involved in criminal cases at regular intervals that their application for bail was rejected. It is pertinent to note that the applicants were involved in crimes in connection with the scuffle and fights they had with their political rivals. There were also counter cases registered against members of KSU. In the instant case also, there is a counter case for attempted culpable homicide registered against the de facto complainant

¶60

¶61

BA 1960/2020

¶62

and others. The political rivalries in the College campuses usually ends within the campus. It is true that certain cases of rivalries do take a very ugly turn. Grievous injuries were sustained by members of the KSU in the clash which had ensued following the difference of opinion with regard to the conducting of Valentine's Day in the college. Provocation must have been there on the part of the de facto complainant and his friends as well. Injuries were also sustained by the members of the SFI. There is no dispute that all the weapons used have been seized by the investigating officer and therefore, custodial interrogation for the purpose of recovery contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act may not be essential. The pandemic situation following Covid-19 also justifies granting of bail to the applicants as long as they are willing to co-operate with the investigation. The applicants definitely do not belong to any criminal gang engaged in organised crimes. The bail order of the Sessions Court

¶63

¶64

BA 1960/2020

¶65

granting bail to the applicants in the earlier Crime (Crime No.2397/2018) is at Annexure R(I). There is no condition in that order stating that the applicants shall not get involved in any similar crime during the currency of the bail. Hence, the fact that the applicants were involved in a subsequent crime is not a violation of the bail conditions in the earlier order of the Sessions Court. The applicants are both aged 19 and hardly out of juvenilty. The additional respondents 2 to 7 are also similarly aged between 21 to 23 years. They are all studying in the Law College with the intention to enter the legal profession. I am sure that they would not be carrying their rivalry, once they get enrolled as responsible Advocates at the Bar. I find no justification in incarceration of the applicants. Hence, they are entitled to the pre-arrest bail as sought for. Considering their antecedents, the conditions ought to be stringent.

¶66

¶67

BA 1960/2020

¶68

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the

¶69

applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of their being arrested, they shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent

¶70

sureties for like amount each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on following conditions:-

¶71

They shall not get involved in similar crimes during the currency of the bail.

¶72

They shall not tamper with evidence, influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶73

They shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9 AM and 12 noon for a period of three months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.

¶74

¶75

BA 1960/2020

¶76

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move the jurisdictional Court

¶77

for cancellation of the bail

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶80

Muhammed Nazim K.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Nazim K.S v. 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

S Praveen Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Mukesh Gopinath Vs State of Kerala

Shihana.S Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sharafudheen Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shahid Vs State of Kerala