Supreme Court of India
STATE OF KERALAversusRANEEF
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 5
- Decided
- 3 January 2011
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- MARKANDEY KATJU
Holding
The Supreme Court held that no prima facie case existed against the respondent under UAPA, the only possible charge was the bailable offence under Section 202 IPC, and mere membership in PFI without proof of its terrorist nature cannot justify denial of bail.
Summary
The State of Kerala appealed a Kerala High Court order granting bail to Dr. Raneef, a dental surgeon accused of aiding assailants who assaulted a college professor and severed his right palm. The prosecution alleged that Dr. Raneef, a member of the Popular Front of India (PFI), had pre‑arranged to provide medical treatment to any injured assailant and had stitched a wound, invoking the proviso to Section 430(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Supreme Court held that no prima facie evidence linked Dr. Raneef to the assault, the UAPA proviso was not triggered, and the only possible charge was under Section 202 of the IPC, which is bailable. The Court also ruled that mere membership in PFI, without proof that the organization is a terrorist group, cannot justify denial of bail, and that a dentist may render emergency medical aid. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the bail order upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the proviso to Section 430(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act applies to the respondent.
- Whether there is prima facie evidence linking the respondent to the assault on the professor.
- Whether mere membership in the Popular Front of India can be a ground for denial of bail.
- Whether the respondent can be charged under Section 202 IPC and if it is a bailable offence.
- Whether providing emergency medical aid by a dentist constitutes an offence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
bailUnlawful Activities (Prevention) ActSection 430Section 202 IPCmembership in extremist organizationmedical aidprima facie evidenceArticle 21terrorismPopular Front of India
Judgment
(2011) 1 S.C.R. 590
A STATE OF KERALA
v.
RANEEF
(Criminal Appeal No. 3 of2011)
JANUARY 3, 2011
B
[MARKANDEY KATJU 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
bailable offence - In absence of any evidence' to prove that
F
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
is not the job of a dentist. It was further alleged that the c
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 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, this Court is yet to consider Whether
E all members of the organization can be automatically held
to be guilty. [Para 12) (597-B-C-E~F]
Redaul Husain Khan v. National Investigation Agency
2010 (1) SCC 521; State of Maharashtra v. Dhanendra
Shriram Bhurle 2009 (11) SCC 541 - distinguished.
F
Scales v. United States 367 U.S. 203; Elfbrandt v. Russell
384 US 17-19 (1966); Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee
v. McGrath 341 US 123 - referred to.
G ' 4. In deciding bail applications an important factor ~
'Y
which should certainly be taken into consideration by the
Court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often the trial
takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but
is ultimately acquitted, Article 21 of the Constitution,
H
.. STATE OF KERALA v. RANEEF 593
which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in A
our Constitution, would be violated. Of course this is not
the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important
factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present
case the respondent has already spent 66 days in
custody, and there is no reason why he should be denied B
bail. [Paras 12, 13] [598•H; 599-A-C]
Case Law Reference:
»-
2010 (1) sec 521 distinguished Para 12
2009 (11) sec 541 distinguished Para 12 c
367 U.S. 203 referred to Para 12
384 us 17-19 (1966) referred to Para 12
341 us 123 referred to Para 12 D
CRIMINAL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 3 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 17.10.2010 of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Bail Application No. 5360 ·Of. E
2010.
.... L. Nageswar Rao, G. Prakash, Beena Prakash for the
..I Appellant.
F
U.U. Lalit, E.M.S. Anam, ~.P. Mohamad Shareef for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
•
,:~
....... "!"
~
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. Leave granted. G
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
H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R .
A . 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 l.P.C., the Explosive
Substances Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
B
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
c 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.
D
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
E
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 ~
'
F
respondent stitched the back of an assailant, which is not the
job of a dentist. The respondent, along with the other accused '
I
is a ·member of the Popular Front of India, a Muslim
organization, and was head of its medical committee. Certain
documents, C.f2.s, mobile phone, books, etc. including a book
•
G
called 'Jihad' were allegedly seized from his house and car.
7. The prosecution has placed reliance on the proviso to
Section 430(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
y
-
'
H Section 173 Cr.P.C. is of the opinion that there are reasonable
STATE OF KERALA v. RANEEF 595
[MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
grounds for believing that the accusation against such person A
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
8
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 C
who are fatally innocent or even had no knowledge of the crime
have been falsely implicated. 54 persons have been made
accused in the crime. Many residential houses, mosques and
offices were raided and searched, and even minor children and
women were cruelly tortured both physically and mentally. Holy
books and other religious books were thrown out, seized and D
taken away and bundled in police stations. War like
atmosphere was created in mosques, daily prayers were
disrupted and men illegally detained, and physically tortured in
custody and false cases booked against innocents.
E
!~. It is further alleged in the counter affidavit 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. They are
not banned organizations. The SDPI is a political party F
recognized by the Election Commission and the PFI is
registered under the Societies Registration Act.
10. The respondent has alleged that he is a dental surgeon
hailing from a respectable family in Aluva. His father Late Dr.
~ --< Abdul Karim was a doctor loved and respected by all, who died G
as a Civil Surgeon while working in the Government Hospital,·
Perumbaroor. In 2001 the respondent started Al Ameen Multi-
Speciality Dental Hospital in Aluva. Five other doctors including
the respondent's wife, who is also a dental surgeon, are
working in the said hospital. The respondent has a son aged H
'
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
A 9 years and daughter aged 5 years. He claims that he has a
very good reputation and is loved by all due to the services
rendered by him to the poor and needy. The respondent's elder
sister is a post graduate in zoology, and his younger sister is a
law graduate. The book entitled 'Jihad' said to have been found
a in his house was a Malayalam translation of a book written in
Urdu in 1927 by a well known and respected religious scholar,
Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Mandoodi and has been in circulation
for 83 years, and is available in many book shops .
.
11. The respondent has alleged that he has been falsely
C implicated only because he medically treated one of the alleged
assailants.
12. At this stage we are not expressing any opinion as to
whether the allegations in the versions of the prosecution
D or defence are correct or not, as evidence has yet to be
led. However, we would like to make certain observations
( 1) We are presently only considering.the bail matter and
are not deciding whether the respondent is guilty or not.
E
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 the respondent was part of a
conspiracy which led to the attack on Prof. Jacob.
F (2) The case against the respondent is very different from
that against the alleged assailants. There is no allegation
that the respondent was one of the assailants.
We are of the opinion that at this stage there is no
G prlma facie proof that the respondent was involved in the
crime. Hence the proviso to Section 430(5) has not been
violated.
The respondent, being a doctor, was under the
Hippocratic oath to attempt to heal a patient. Just as it is
H the duty of a lawyer to defem.t qn accused, so also it is th.e
STATE OF KERALA v. RANEEF 597
[MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
duty of a doctor to heal. Even a dentist can apply stitches A
in an emergency. Prima facie we are of the opinion that
the only offence that can be leveled against the respondent
is that under 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 B
is a bailable offence.
(3) As regards the allegation that the respondent belongs
to the PFI, it is true that it has been held in Redau/ Husain
Khan vs. National Investigation Agency 2010 (1) SCC
521 that merely because an organization has not been C
declared as an 'unlawful association' it cannot be said that
,· tb-~ :>aid organization could not have indulged in terrorist
· .activities. However, in our opinion the said decision is
distinguishable as in that case the accused was sending
. money to an extremist organization for purchasing arms D
and ammunition. That is not the allegation in the present
case. The decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Dhanendra
Shriram Bhurle 2009(11) SCC 541 is also distinguishable
because good reasons have been given in the present
case by the High Court for granting bail to the respondent. E
In the present case 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
F
illegal organization, we have yet to consider whether all
members of the organization can be automatically held to
be guilty.
In Sea/es vs. United States 367 U.S. 203 Mr. Justice
Harlan of the U.S. Supreme Court while dealing with the G
membership clause in the McCarran Act, 1950
distinguished between active 'knowing' membership and
passive, merely nominal membership in a subversive ·
organization, and observed :
H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. ....
A "The clause does not make criminal all association
with an organization which has been shown to engage in
illegal activity. A person may be foolish, deluded, or
perhaps mere optimistic, but he is not by this statute made
a criminal. There must be clear proof that the defendant
B SJ~ecifical/y intends to accomplish the aifr!S of the
organization by resort to violence."
In Elfbrandt vs. Russell 384 US 17-19 (1966)
Justice Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court speaking for
the majority observed :
c
"Those who join an organization but do not share its
unlawful purpose and who do not participate in its unlawful
activities surely pose no threat, either as citizens or as
public employees. A law which applies to membership
D without the 'specific intent' to further the illegal aims of the
organization infringes unnecessarily on protected
freedoms. It rests on the doctrine of 'guilt by association'
which has no place here."
In Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee vs. McGrath 341
E
US 123 at 174 (1951) Mr. Justice Douglas of the U.S. ,
Supreme Court observed :
"In days of great tension when feelings run high, it is a
temptation to take shortcuts by borrowing from the
F totalitarian techniques of our opponents. But when we do,
we set in motion a subversive influence of our own design
that destroys us from within."
We respectfully agree with the above decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court, and are of the opinion that they apply in
G
our country too. We are living in a democracy, and the
above observations apply to all democracies.
(4) In deciding bail applications an important factor which
should certainly be· taken into consideration by the Court
H
STATE OF KERALA v. RANEEF 599
[MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several A
years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately
acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent
in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the
most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution,
not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only 8
factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in
deciding whether to grant bail.
13. In the present case the respondent has already spent
66 days in custody (as stated in paragraph 2 of his counter
affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. C
A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr.
Manette in Charles Dicken's novel 'A Tale of Two Cities',' who
~
forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille.
14. With the above observations, this appeal is dismissed. D
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "bail"Sign in to search