Muhammed Shabith K.M. v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2015/26TH ASHADHA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 1239 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 78/2015 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION,KASARAGOD DISTRICT --------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 4 AND 5:

----------------------------------------------------------

1. MUHAMMED SHABITH K.M., AGED 24 YEARS, (A4) S/O.IBRAHIM, SINAN MANZIL, THAYAL NAINMARMOOLA, MUTTATHODI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

2. ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 38 YEARS, (A5) S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI, THAYAL NAINMARMOOLA, MUTTATHODI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN RESPONDENT/STATE:

------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING S.H.O. VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J --------------------------- B.A.NO.1239 OF 2015 ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of July, 2015

O R D E R

-------------- Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2.

Petitioners and the co-accused are alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 and read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code 3.

The prosecution case is that they armed with deadly weapons like iron rods assaulted the victims with weapons causing one of them serious injuries on his head. 4.

Heard.

5.

One of the two victims sustained an extensive injury on the head. This makes probable the prosecution version that he was attacked with a weapon like an iron rod. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners were not present along with the co-accused and there is no allegation that the petitioners used any weapon. That is true. But the nature of the weapons was such that the other members of the unlawful assembly were aware of

B.A.NO.1239 OF 2015 the co-accused carrying the weapons. In the case of an unlawful assembly it is immaterial that all the members did not use violence. The statement made by the victim to the doctor indicates that there were several people among the assailants. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. In the result, this application is dismissed. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners will surrender before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod. They may do so if they are so advised. sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge