IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6522 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 282/2008 OF KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): IST ACCUSED ------------------------------- RENJITH, S/O.RAVI, KATTUNILATH HOUSE, AYAMKUDY, MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6522 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of October,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 452 and 323 IPC. According to prosecution, on 11-9- 2008 at about 10.30 p.m. petitioner along with six others formed themselves in to an unlawful assembly trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and assaulted him with hands and also abused him, etc. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the incident did not occur in the house. Section 452 is added only with a view to harass petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that the incident occurred on 11-9-2008, but the complaint was filed only on 13-9-2008 and there was a delay in filing the complaint. There is a long standing dispute between the family members of petitioner and de facto complainant and a civil suit is also pending and an injunction was obtained by petitioner's father against de facto complainant. There is no house trespass and no preparation for any offence. The injury sustained is only abrasion. The other offences committed are under sections 294(b) and 323 IPC. BA 6522/08 -2- 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the case diary, the offence committed is inside the house and the only non-bailable offence is under section 452 IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor conceded that there is three days delay in filing the complaint. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that on the facts of the case, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail, but for the purpose of bail, offence included can be treated as under section 448 IPC instead of section 452 IPC by the court as well as the police. It is made clear that this is only for the purpose of bail. With this observation this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.