Muneer Cu vs State Of Kerala

The applicants in both the applications are arrayed as accused in Crime Nos. 916/2020 of Perambra Police Station, Kozhikode, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147, 353 and 332 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and under Sections 4(2)(j) and 4(2)(e) of the Kerala Epidemic Diseases ordinance 2020 and under Section 3(e) of Kerala Epidemic Diseases Additional Regulations, 2020

The prosecution in brief is that on 14.12.2020 at about 10.30 p.m., under the leadership of accused Nos. 1 to 8 about 50 persons belonging to the United Democratic front formed an unlawful assembly, and conducted a Dharna in front of the Perambra Police Station, alleging that a particular crime was not being properly investigated by the Police. Consequently, the mob turned violent and attacked the defacto complainant, a Police Officer, pelted stones, kicked him down and thereafter beat him up. Not only did they assault the officer, they also captured video graphs of the incident and circulated it widely among the public. Thus they deterred the Police Officers from performing the duty as Public servants.

The applicants state that the allegations are not true. The 1st applicant in B.A. 617 of 2021 is a teacher and was on election duty and, returning from there when the alleged incident took place and he had no role in the said offence. The other accused also made similar contentions.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that A1 to A8 were the persons who led the agitation and they definitely inspired and instigated the rest in attacking the Police. Regarding the present applicants it is submitted that Accused No. 18 is the person who had pushed down the Police Officer and consequent to that he was assaulted by others. Accused No.18 has five other criminal cases registered against him and has criminal antecedents and therefore bail application is vehemently opposed.

After having heard the submissions of both sides, I find that accused Nos. A1 to A8 are the main perpetrators of the agitation, for having instigated a mob of 50 persons allegedly belonging to the UDF, who had protested in front of the Police Station and later on the mob turned violent. Injuries were caused to the Police Officer but no grievous injuries has been sustained by any of them. But the specific allegation against Accused No.18 is for having pushed down the Policeman on duty and also he is a person having criminal antecedents. In the circumstances, Accused No. 18 namely Ramshad Pandikkad, who is the 7th applicant in B.A. No. 617/2021 is not entitled for the exceptional discretionary remedy of anticipatory bail. The rest of the applicants are entitled to the discretionary remedy. Hence B.A. No. 615 of 2021 is allowed and B.A. No. 617 of 2021 is allowed in part. The applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks from today. In the event of their arrest, after interrogation, all the accused except Accused No. 18 shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions:

(i) The applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

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

(iii) They shall not get involved in similar offences during the bail period.

In case of the breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail.

Accused No. 18 shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate and an application for regular bail preferred by him shall be considered and preferably disposed of on the same day.