Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5505
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V.K.MOHANAN, J
R RAFEEQ MUNEER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 1884/2010
Bail may be granted with stringent conditions to manage communal tensions and prevent further offenses.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure - IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 153(A) - The court examined the implications of communal violence, the seriousness of the offenses under the IPC, and the necessity for stringent bail conditions to maintain public order.
Fact of the Case:
Two revision petitions were filed by different accused challenging the cancellation of their bail orders by the Sessions Court, related to allegations of rioting and unlawful assembly connected to communal violence.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the cancellation of bail orders considering the severity of the crimes and communal tensions while deciding to grant bail under stringent conditions due to improved circumstances.
Issues: Whether the petitioners can be granted bail considering the earlier cancellation of bail orders and the pervasive communal violence in the area.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that while bail can be granted, it must come with strict conditions to prevent further communal tension and ensure public safety.
Final Decision: The petitioners are granted bail under stringent conditions while setting aside the previous cancellation orders.
O R D E R
Though these revision petitions are preferred by different accused persons in different crime numbers, as the similarity of the subject matter and the question of facts and law, these two revision petitions are heard and disposed of together.
2. Both the revision petitions are preferred challenging the orders of the learned Sessions Judge by which Crl.R.P.1884/10 has come up for admission only on today, whereas Crl.R.P.571/10 has already been admitted and this court passed an interim order of stay of the impugned order, subject to a condition that, the petitioners shall not enter the limits of the Kasaragod Police Station for 10 days. The said order was issued on 18.2.2010 and the same is being extended from time to time.
3. Crl.R.P.571/10 :- This revision petition is preferred by the accused nos.A3 to A5 in Crime No.837/09 of Kasaragod Police Station, where the offences involved are under S.143, 147, 148, 427 and 153(A) r/w.149 of IPC . There the allegation is that, on 15.11.2009 the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, committed rioting and caused damage to the shop of the defacto complainant. After their arrest, they filed C.M.P.No.4265/09 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod, for bail and by an order dated 26.11.2009, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granted bail to those accused, against which the State filed Crl.M.P.No.4472/09 before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod and by an order dated 4.2.2010, the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail, which order is challenged in this revision petition.
4. Crl.R.P.1884/10 :- This revision petition is preferred by the 4th accused in Crime No.823/09 of Kasaragod Police Station, connected with an incident that taken place on 15.11.2009, where the offence involved are u/s.143, 147, 148, 341, 326, 294 (b) and 153(A) r/w.149 of IPC . The revision petitioner has preferred C.M.P.No.4247/09 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod, for bail and the same was granted by an order dated 25.11.2009. Against the said order, the State filed Crl.M.P.No.4473/09, to cancel the order of bail granted to the petitioners and the same was allowed in the order dated 29.1.2010. In this revision petition, the challenge is against the above order of the learned Sessions Judge, cancelling bail. 5. Heard the counsels appearing for the revision petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The counsels for the revision petitioners submitted that, accused No.6 in Crime No.837/09 of Kasaragod Police Station was subsequently enlarged on bail as per the order of the Sessions Court, with certain stringent conditions and therefore the petitioners in these revision petitions can also be granted similar relief.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the 3rd petitioner in Crl.R.P.571/10 involved in two other crime cases, wherein S.123(A) is also involved. It is also the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that, the petitioner in Crl.R.P.1884/10 involved in another crime, namely, Crime No.869/09 of the Kasaragod Police Station in which also S.153 (A) is involved. Thus according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the State moved the Sessions Court for cancellation of bail under a particular situation that, during the period between 15.11.2009 and 30.11.2009, about 15 crime cases were registered in the Kasaragod Police Station and in all those cases S.153(A) of IPC is involved. It has also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, connected with the communal clashes, which taken place in the Kasaragod District, this court while disposing the bail application ie.,B.A.No.2785/09, observed that the bail application connected with the communal violence is a serious matter and directed the Government to take action to curtail the communal violence prevailing in the Kasaragod District. Thus according to the learned Public Prosecutor, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granted bail to the accused without considering the tense situati
