IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4212 of 2010() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 481/2010 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION ........................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : ------------------------------- 1. VISWANATHAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, POOVANTHARA HOUSE, ORUMANAYUR.P.O.,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SAVITHRI AGED 53 YEARS, W/O. SUBRAMANIAN, KURUVALLY HOUSE, ORUMANAYUR.P.O.,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SUDHI, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, KURUVALLY HOUSE, ORUMANAYUR.P.O.,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. SUBI, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, KURUVALLY HOUSE, ORUMANAYUR.P.O.,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 4212 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 452, 341, 323, 324, 427, 294(b) and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 28.05.2010 at about 7.45 P.M., petitioners(A1 to A3) trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and assaulted him, his wife and children and also caused damage to the windows. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant is highly suspicious about all the persons in the neighbourhood about their relationship with his wife. A false case is filed against petitioner that first petitioner was peeping through the window of his house etc. Petitioner and his entire family members are implicated in this case and even the female members are included in the array of accused. Petitioners requested for an opportunity to explain their innocence before the investigating officer and this court issued a direction to the first accused to appear before the investigating officer and he was B.A. No. 4212 / 2010 2 appeared and he was questioned. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that first accused appeared before the investigating officer, as directed by this court and he was thoroughly interrogated. He has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to accused nos.1, 2 and 4, but it is pointed out that third accused is not in India at present. Therefore, he does not apprehend any arrest for the time being. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that all petitioners except accused no.3, can be granted anticipatory bail. However, third accused is being in gulf country, there cannot be any apprehension of imminent arrest. Hence, at this stage, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to third accused. It is likely that if anticipatory bail is granted, he may not even turn up and the investigation will be delayed. He is bound to surrender without delay. In the result, the following order is passed: 1. Accused nos. 1, 2 and 4 shall, in the event of their arrest, be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties B.A. No. 4212 / 2010 3 each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the condition that accused nos. 1, 2 and 4 shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. 2. This order will be in force only for a period of 25 days from today. In the meantime, petitioners(accused nos. 1 , 2 and 4) shall seek regular bail from the court concerned in accordance with law. 3. The prayer for anticipatory bail by third accused is rejected. This petition is partly allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln