C. MUHAMMED IQBAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whoever you be Judge, Prosecutor, Counsel, Police Official or an ordinary lay citizen; if after going through the Case Diary in this case, your sense of justice and righteousness is not hurt or wounded, there must be something structurally defective and deficient in you. The crime alleged in this case and the sequence of events that followed are truly disturbing. Your pride of being a citizen in this Republic wedded to rule of law would be pricked. Any civilized society must hang its head down in shame that such events can take place within it anywhere. It would be abdication of responsibility for this Court to pretend not to have seen the sorry state of affairs in this Case Diary and proceed to dispose of the anticipatory bail application wearing blinkers. Observations must be made about the gross injustice in the hope that such observations will improve the quality of criminal justice delivery system in the State and ignoring the apprehension that the observations may trigger sensational commercial journalism and provide fodder for political fencing.

(2.) The events took place not in any corner of the State; but in the heart of Talassery Town which has a place of prominence in the judicial map of this country that too at the busy O. V. Road. There is a row of shops lying east to west abutting the main road. The victim in this case runs a petty shop a textile and tailoring shop in the middle room, having taken the premises on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.3,100/- as per a lease deed dated 01/04/2004 in the name of his wife. One Musthafa and Mohammed Kunhi are said to be the joint owners of the said shop room. The petitioner herein is arrayed as the 4th accused. He is Mohammed Iqbal, the Power of Attorney holder of the said Mohammed Kunhi. The rooms on the east and west of the victim's shop as also the area behind have all been sold. There were requests to the victim to surrender his premises. He did not yield to those requests. Such requests were allegedly made by accused 1 to 4 whose names are narrated in the FIR. On the night of 07/04/2007, the victim had closed the shop and proceeded to his house in peace. The next morning he was informed that his shop room as well as the adjacent shop rooms have all been razed down brutally employing JCBs and other vehicles. The tenant victim who thought that law will take care of them and will not be forcibly thrown out of possession, came on the next morning to see his shop room razed down and all the articles either destroyed or removed stealthily. He ran to the police station in the hope that he will get justice from the police. An FIR was registered. The four persons, who had allegedly wanted the victim to surrender his shop, were naturally shown as the suspected accused persons who must have had a role in razing down his shop room. The investigation slowly proceeded. The persons in the locality were questioned by the police. The adjacent shop owner stated to the police that the four accused persons had come on the previous night to him and had insisted that he must vacate the premises after taking away all his articles on the same night. He complied with the said request. As he was proceeding to leave his shop in the late hours, he had seen the JCB and all the paraphernalia kept ready for operation with the four accused persons present there.

(3.) The 4th accused the petitioner herein came to this Court claiming anticipatory bail. On his own showing he is a very influential person of the locality. There are indications to show that he enjoys affluence also. He prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to him. The incident took place in the night of 07/04/2007 and the petitioner had come to this Court as late as on 12/07/2007. He was not arrested till then. He raised a contention before me when the matter came up for hearing that he is only a suspect; that the suspicion is unjustified and that he is not liable to be arrested.