IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6854 of 2008() ----------------------------- Cr.NO.436/08 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------- SUNIL KUMAR @ VADIVAL SUNI, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, 3 YEARS, PARVATHI NIVAS, PALLIKUNU AMSOM AND DESOM, PALLIKUNNU.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.436/2008 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT)REPRESENTED BY PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.6854 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 427, 506(ii) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner (first accused) along with other accused formed into an unlawful assembly and criminally trespassed into the house of defacto complainant on 08.06.2008 at 9 p.m. and voluntarily caused hurt to defacto complainant's relative and on a complaint made by the defacto complainant, a crime is registered under the above Sections. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no criminal trespass is involved in this case. The petitioner is only an invitee to the marriage of defacto complainant's daughter and they had gone to his house for the reception on the previous night without any preparation for committing any offence. There was also no actual entry into the house. The alleged incident occur not inside the house, admittedly. There was some quarrel between the invitees and the host regarding the manner in which the food was served and during this, petitioner was assaulted and he sustained injuries BA.6854/08 2 and he was hospitalised for 6 days. He also made a compliant. It is also submitted that as per the allegations, a beer bottle was hit against the table by one of the persons and the glass piece happened to strike the face of the defacto complainant's relative, but it does not mean there was any causing of hurt. 4. It is also pointed out that the matter was amicably settled between the parties as evidenced by Annexure A3 agreement. But the offence being one under section 452, the F.I.R. was not quashed, though a petition was filed for quashing the same under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner may be arrested and detained, since offence under Section 452 of I.P.C., which is a non bailable offence is included, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that except the offence under Section 452 I.P.C., all other offences are bailable offences and admittedly, the incident happened in the courtyard of house. But in the nature of allegations, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, I am also satisfied of the submissions made. But I find that further purpose of bail, offence under Section 452 of I.P.C. can be treated as not included in this case by the police BA.6854/08 3 and the court. It is made clear that this is only for the purpose of bail. The police or records shall treat the offences having not including section 452 of I.P.C. The petitioner shall appear before Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with investigation. With this direction and observation, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.