SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 7

2011 (1) Supreme 65
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
State of Kerala — Appellant
versus
Raneef — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. _ 3____of 2011
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7999/2010]
Decided on : 3-1-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
Respondent cannot be penalized merely for belonging to the P.F.I.
Likely delay in commencement and completion of trial and their effect on the undertrial prisoner may be one of the factors to be considered in granting bail.

Headnote:(a) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 43D(5) – No prima facie proof of respondent’s involvement in the crime – Proviso to Section 43D(5) not violated. (Para 12).

        (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 202 – Respondent being a doctor, albeit dental doctor was bound by oath to treat any patient – Suturing wound of one of the accused is no crime – The only offence that could be leveled against him would be of not giving the information of the crime to police as required in section 202 which is bailable. (Para 12)

        (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Respondent could not be penalized merely for belonging to the P.F.I. (Para 12)

       (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 r/w Article 21, Constitution of India – Likely delay in commencement and completion of trial and their effect on the undertrial prisoner may be one of the factors to be considered in granting bail. (Para 12)

       Facts of the case:

        1. In this appeal bail granted by High Court to an accused charged with offences under provisions of I.P.C., the Explosive Substances Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is challenged.

        2. Seven assailants came in a Maruti Van and assaulted Prof. T.J. Jacob of Newman College, Thodupuzha and chopped off his right palm from the vicinity of his house when he was returning home after Sunday mass.

        3. The role attributed to the respondent is that he treated one of the injured assailants (who was injured when Prof. Jacob’s son tried to protect his father) by suturing (stitching) his wound on the back after applying local anesthesia at a place 45 kms. away from the place of the incident.

        4. The alleged motive for attacking Prof. Jacob was that he incorporated a question for the internal examination of B.Com. paper criticizing Prophet Mohammed and Islam.

       Finding of the Court:

        There is no infirmity in granting bail to the respondent.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the standard for bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 when there is no prima facie proof of involvement and how does it relate to proviso to Section 43D(5)?

What is the role of delay in commencement and completion of trial as a factor in granting bail under Article 21 of the Constitution?

What are the limits of penalizing a person for belonging to an organization (PFI) in the context of bail, and how does membership interact with prima facie proof of involvement?


JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the impugned order of the Kerala High Court dated 17.9.2010 granting bail to the respondent, Dr. Raneef, who is a medical practitioner (dentist) in Ernakulam district in Kerala, and is accused in crime no.704 of 2010 of P.S. Muvattupuzha for offences under various provisions of the I.P.C., the Explosive Substances Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

4. The facts of the case are that on 4.7.2010 soon after 8 a.m. seven assailants came in a Maruti Van and assaulted Prof. T.J. Jacob of Newman College, Thodupuzha and chopped off his right palm from the vicinity of his house when he was returning home after Sunday mass. The role attributed to the respondent is that he treated one of the injured assailants (who was injured when Prof. Jacob’s son tried to protect his father) by suturing (stitching) his wound on the back after applying local anesthesia at a place 45 kms. away from the place of the incident.

5. The alleged motive for attacking Prof. Jacob was that he incorporated a question for the internal examination of B.Com. paper criticizing Prophet Mohammed and Islam.

6. The prosecution case is that the respondent gave medical aid to one of the wounded accused in pursuance of a previous plan that if and when any of the assailants got injured in the attack on Prof. Jacob then immediate medical treatment would be given by the respondent to the injured. The respondent stitched the back of an assailant, which is not the job of a dentist. The respondent, along with the other accused is a member of the Popular Front of India, a Muslim organization, and was head of its medical committee. Certain documents, C.D.s, mobile phone, books, etc. including a book called ‘Jihad’ were allegedly seized from his house and car.

7. The prosecution has placed reliance on the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 which states that the accused shall not be released on bail if the Court, on perusal of the case diary or the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.

8. On the other hand, the case of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before us is that even according to the prosecution case the respondent was not one of the assailants, and he is not named in the FIR. In para 13 of the counter affidavit the respondent has stated that the attack on Prof. Jacob is a crime which is to be condemned. However, as a pretext to the investigation the police had lashed out a rein of terror on innocent people of the minority community, people who are totally innocent or even had no knowledge of the crime have been falsely implicated. 54 persons have been made accused in the crime. Many residential houses, mosques and offices were raided and searched, and even minor children and women were cruelly tortured both physically and mentally. Holy books and other religious books were thrown out, seized and taken away and bundled in police stations. War like atmosphere was created in mosques, daily prayers were disrupted and men illegally detained, and physically tortured in custody and false cases booked against innocents.

9. It is further alleged in the counter affidavit that the Popular Front of India (PFI) or the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) are not militant or terrorist organizations. There is no history of crimes against the party or its workers. They are not banned organizations. The SDPI is a political party recognized by the Election Commission and the PFI is registered under the Societies Registration Act.

10. The respondent has alleged that he is a dental surgeon hailing from a respectable family in Aluva. His father Late Dr. Abdul Karim was a doctor loved and respected by all, who died as a Civil Surgeon while working in th



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top