Case Brief: State of Kerala v Raneef

FACTS:
On 4.7.2010 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. The role attributed to Raneef, who is a medical practitioner (dentist) in Ernakulam district in Kerala, is that he treated one of the injured assailants (who was injured when Prof. Jacob’s son tried to protect his father) by (stitching) his wound on the back after applying local anesthesia. 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.
ISSUE:
The issue involved relates to the impugned order of the Kerala High Court dated 17.9.2010 granting bail to the respondent, who is accused in crime for offences under various provisions of the I.P.C., the Explosive Substances Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
ARGUMENTS BY THE PROSECUTION:
It was argued by the prosecution that the respondent gave medical aid to one of the wounded accused by stitching the back of an assailant, which is not the job of a dentist. It was further put forward that 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.
The prosecution 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.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT:
The respondent contended that even according to the prosecution the respondent was not one of the assailants, and he is not named in the FIR. It was further added 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. The SDPI is a political party recognized by the Election Commission and the PFI is registered under the Societies Registration Act. The respondent has alleged that he has been falsely implicated only because he medically treated one of the alleged assailants.
HELD:
The Hon’ble Court stated that the matter before it is to consider is regarding the bail only. The Court further observed that since there was no prima facie proof that the respondent was involved in the crime. Hence the proviso to Section 43D(5) had not been violated.
It was also added that just as it is the duty of a lawyer to defend an accused, so also it is the duty of a doctor to heal. Even a dentist can apply stitches in an emergency. The only offence that can be leveled against the respondent is that under Section 202 of I.P.C., that is, of omitting to give information of the crime to the police, and this offence has also to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Section 202 is a bailable offence.
In the present case, the Court said, there is no evidence as yet to prove that the P.F.I. is a terrorist organization, and hence the respondent cannot be penalized merely for belonging to the P.F.I. Moreover, even assuming that the P.F.I. is an illegal organization, we have yet to consider whether all members of the organization can be automatically held to be guilty.
And hence the appeal was dismissed.