IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6587 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.878/2008 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------- BIJU, S/O.SUBAYARKUTTY, KOCHAYATH VEEDU, PERINGAL MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6587 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 452, 324 and 323 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner was told by de facto complainant not to come and sit in her pan shop, since it will cause room for rumors. Petitioner was infuriated by this and hence, he committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant, carrying wooden stick and assaulted de facto complainant, slapped on her face and when her son intervened, he was also assaulted. The incident happened on 9-10-2008 at 7 p.m. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. This case is falsely foisted against him on account of a dispute himself and de facto complainant's husband. It is also submitted that de facto complainant is running a pan shop and admittedly, de facto complainant's husband was not present in the house and hence, at the time of occurrence offence, (being 7 p.m.) there are chances that de facto complainant would be sitting in the pan shop since it is peak hour for the business. But, according to her, BA 6587/08 -2- the incident happened in the house which cannot be accepted, it is submitted. probable. Hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a case where de facto complainant (who is a woman) and her son were assaulted, when de facto complainant's husband was away and since she told petitioner not to sit in the pan shop as it is likely to spread rumors. The pan shop and house were situated close to each other and there is no improbability in the presence of the injured being present at the house. Petitioner used wooden stick and it is to be recovered, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature of the allegations made and considering the nature of investigation required, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. On the theory of probability relating to presence of injured in the house alone, it is not possible at this stage to conclude that this is a false case. Petitioner is required for interrogation and recovery of weapon used. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay BA 6587/08 -3- and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him at any time. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.