- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mohammed Sufail v. Sub Inspector Of Police
Factual and Procedural Background
This application for pre-arrest bail was filed by accused Nos. 1 to 10 in Crime No. 300 of 2017 registered at Valancheri Police Station. The accused are second year Degree students of Safa College, Valancheri. The prosecution alleges that on 13.10.2017, the accused wrongfully restrained and assaulted junior students of the same college, committing acts of ragging and causing hurt. The accused sought pre-arrest bail, claiming innocence and false implication.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioners accused of ragging and causing hurt are entitled to pre-arrest bail under the circumstances of the case?
- Whether the petitioners should be allowed to surrender and cooperate with the investigation in lieu of immediate custody?
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The petitioners assert their innocence and claim to have been falsely implicated.
- They argue that being students, there is no justification for their detention in custody for the alleged acts.
Prosecution's Arguments
- This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the nature of the allegations involving serious offences under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, and 149 of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998. Recognizing the legislative intent behind the Prohibition of Ragging Act—to eradicate ragging due to its severe physical and psychological harm, including fatal consequences—the court emphasized the gravity of the offence. It reasoned that leniency in such matters could undermine the purpose of the legislation. After considering the facts, the court concluded that the petitioners are not entitled to pre-arrest bail. However, the court allowed the petitioners an opportunity to surrender voluntarily and cooperate with the investigation, directing that if they do so within ten days, they shall be interrogated and produced before the competent court on the same day, where bail applications may be considered promptly on merits.
Holding and Implications
The application for pre-arrest bail is dismissed.
The decision directly denies pre-arrest bail to the accused students charged with ragging offences, reinforcing the strict stance against ragging under the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act. The court’s order permits the accused to surrender and cooperate with the investigation, but does not set any new precedent beyond affirming the seriousness with which ragging offences are treated.
Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.:— This application for pre-arrest bail has been preferred by the accused Nos. 1 to 10 in Crime No. 300 of 2017 of Valancheri Police Station. The aforesaid Crime has been registered alleging offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 341 and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC and under Sections and 3 and 4 of the Prohibition of Ragging Act. The petitioners herein are the second year Degree students of the Safa College at Valancheri.
2. The prosecution allegation is on 13.10.2017 the petitioners wrongly restrained the junior students of the said college and assaulted them. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the petitioners have committed the grossly reprehensible act of ragging of the junior students and have caused hurt to them in the process.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are students and there is no reason to detain them in custody for such acts.
4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the Case Diary.
5. The Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 was enacted with a view to put an end to ragging in educational institutions in the State. This was to stem the grossly abhorrent trend in campuses to subject junior students to physical and psychological harm. In Numerous cases ragging has had calamitous consequences and have even resulted in the junior students suffering grave physical harm or even death. These practices cannot be entertained in any campus and if a lenient view is taken, it may undermine the reasons for enacting the legislation itself.
6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances and the nature of allegations, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief of pre arrest bail.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel prays that an opportunity be granted to the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation. If the petitioners are so advised, they may surrender before the investigating officer, within ten days from today. If they so surrender, they shall be interrogated and shall be produced before the court having jurisdiction on the same day itself. If an application for bail is preferred, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed expeditiously and on its merits.
8. This application is dismissed.
Alert