Gyan Sudha Misra 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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........