IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7837 of 2008() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.1171/2008 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 : -------------------------------------------- 1. AMBILY @ SURESH, AGED 35, S/O. SUBRAN, NEDIYARA HOUSE, SOUTH PUTHUVAIPU, PIN 682 508. 2. RAJU AGED 41, DO.....DO.... BY ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE : -------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.7837 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 324, 427 and 34 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioners committed house trespass into the house of the defacto complainant after making preparation to assault defacto complainant and beat the defacto complainant and 2 other inmates in the house. They also committed mischief by breaking the window glasses. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that first petitioner's brother was attacked by the defacto complainant's son, prior to the incident. Thereafter, first petitioner's mother was also assaulted by defacto complainant's son after trespassing into the property and though crime was registered, offence under Section 447 of I.P.C. was included but in this case, offence included is under Section 452 of I.P.C. This is done with a view to harass petitioners implicating him in a non bailable offence. Hence, anticipatory bail may be B.A.No.7837 of 2008 2 granted, it is submitted. The allegations made against petitioners are absolutely incorrect. It is also submitted that petitioners are prepared to appear before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. It is also submitted that the case happened to be registered due to political influence. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it cannot be said that it is a false case. The defacto complainant and 2 others have sustained injuries and they were hospitalised. Sticks were used by accused nos.1 and 2 and case diary reveals that they have committed house trespass after making preparation for committing the offences and offence under section 452 of I.P.C. is clearly attracted. Recovery of the weapon is effected. But, petitioners were not available for interrogation though the incident happened on 10.11.2008. On hearing both sides, considering the facts and circumstances and the nature of allegations made, I do not find that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail in the light of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioners B.A.No.7837 of 2008 3 were not available for interrogation. The fact that 2 other incidents occurred prior to the incident in this case by itself is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation without any delay. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac