STATE OF KERALA versus RANEEF

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 590 · Decided: 03-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2011) 1 S.C.R. 590 
A 
STATE OF KERALA 
v. 
RANEEF 
(Criminal Appeal No. 3 of2011) 
B 
JANUARY 3, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Bail - Grant of - Criminal assault on College Professor 
-«. 
- His right palm chopped of - Alleged motive for attacking 
c the Professor was that he incorporated a question for B. Com. 
paper criticizing Prophet Mohammed and Islam - Prosecution 
case that respondent, a dental surgeon, stitched the back of 
an injured assailant in pursuance of a previous plan - Further 
a/legation that respondent was member of PF/, a Muslim 
D organization -
High· Court granted bail to respondent -
Challenge to - Held: There was no a/legation that respondent 
was one of the assailants - Even there was no prima facie 
proof that respondent was involved in the crime - Hence, 
proviso to s. 430(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)· Act 
E was not violated - Even a dentist can apply stitches in an 
emergency - Prima facie the only offence that can be leveled 
against the respondent is under s.202 /PC, of omitting to give 
information of the crime to the police, and this offence also 
has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt -
S.202 is a 
F bailable offence - In absence of any evidence' to prove that 
PF/ is a terrorist organization, the respondent cannot be 
penalized merely for belonging to the PF/ '."'" No reason for 
denial of bail to respondent - Penal Code, 1860 - s.202 -
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - s.430(5), proviso. 
G 
According to the prosecution, seven assailants came 
""' 
in a Maruti Van and assaulted a College Professor and 
chopped off his right palm when he was returning home. 
The alleged motive for attacking the Professor was that 
H 
590 
STATE OF KERALA v .. RANEEF 
591 
he incorporated a question for the internal examination 
A 
of B.Com. paper criticizing Prophet Mohammed and 
Islam. 
Respondent is a dental surgeon. The prosecution 
case is that the respondent gave medical aid to one of B 
the wounded accused in pursuance of a previous plan 
that if and when any of the assailants got injured in the 
attack on the Professor then immediate medical treatment 
>"-
would be given by the respondent to the injured; and that 
the .respondent stitched the back of an assailant, which c 
is not the job of a dentist. It was further alleged that the 
respondent was a member of the Popular Front of India 
(PFI), a Muslim organization, and was head of its medical 
committee. The prosecution placed reliance on the 
proviso to Section 430(5) of the Unlawful Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1967 which states that the accused 
D 
.., 
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. 
E 
The instant appeal is filed against the order of High 
.,., 
Court granting bail to the respondent. 
' Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD:1. In the instant case, this Court is only 
considering the bail matter and not deciding whether the 
respondent is guilty or not. Evidence has yet to be led 
and the trial yet to commence. Hence the prosecution is 
" 
yet to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt that G 
...... 
the respondent was part of a conspiracy which led to the 
attack on the Professor. [Para 12] [596-E] 
. 2. The case against the respondent is very different 
from that against the alleged assailants. There is no 
H 
592 
SUPREME. COURT REPORTS 
(2011) 1 S.C.R. 
A allegation that the respondent was one of the assailants. 
There is no prima facie' proof that the respond~nt was: 
involved in the crime. Hence the proviso to Section 43015) 
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has no( 
been violated. The respondent, being a doctor, was 'under.: 
8 the Hippocratic oath to attempt to heal a patient. 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. Prima facie the only offence 
~ 
that can be leveled against the respondent is that _under 
c Section 202 l.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. [Para 12) (596-F-H;' 597-A-B] 
3. As regards the allegation that the respondent 
D belongs to the PFI, there is no evidence as yet to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.