IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1085 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.6/2010 OF ENATHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ------------------------------------------- KRISHNA KUMAR @ VISWAMBARAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, PULIMTHANATHU CHARUVILA, PUTHUSSERY BHAGAM, VAYALA, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.1085 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 15th June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 452 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner along with other accused formed into an unlawful assembly and committed house- trespass into the house of the defacto complainant on 2.1.2010 at about 12 p.m. and assaulted defacto complainant with sticks etc. Mischief was also committed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is a civil dispute between defacto complainant and one Pushparajan. The said person was deleted from the array of the accused and in his place, petitioner is falsely implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was not even available in the station on the alleged date of occurrence. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations in the case diary, petitioner along with others had committed the offences due to previous BA NO.1085/10 2 enmity. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioner has not made out any exceptional circumstances to grant anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The incident happened as early as on 2.1.2010, more than five months back and petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation, without delay. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs