IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6857 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.620/08 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED 1 TO 4 -------------------- 1. SREEJITH, 24 YEARS, S/O.PADMAKARAN R/AT.SILPASALA, PUNNALA MURI PUNNALA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM. 2. SARATH, 24 YEARS, S/O.SANTHAKUMAR R/AT.PULICKASSERIL ATHIRUMKAL, KOODAL VILLAGE ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. RENJITH, 26 YEARS, S/O.PADMAKARAN, R/AT.SILPASALA PUNNALA MURI, PUNNALA VILLAGE PATHANAMTHITTA TALUK, KOLLAM. 4. RAJITH, 24 YEARS, S/O.PADMAKARAN R/AT.SILPASALA,PUNNALA MURI, PUNNALA VILLAGE PATHANAPUTRAM TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PATHANAPURAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6857 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 294(b), 323 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners, accused nos.1 to 4, in furtherance of common intention, trespassed into the house of defacto complainant with preparation to commit offences, abused the defacto complainant and family members in filthy language, committed mischief and also assaulted them. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners and the family members of the defacto complainant are close relatives. They are on enmical terms for the past many years. The third accused's marriage was fixed to 23.11.2008 and hence, only with a view to create problems to the family members, a false case has been foisted against petitioners, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that the alleged date of occurrence is 28.9.2008 but, the FIR was registered only on 3.10.2008 and there is a delay in lodging the FIR. It is also submitted that offence under Section 452 IPC (which is the only BA No. 6857/2008 2 non bailable offence) is not attracted in this case, since evidence is lacking regarding preparation to commit offence. For the offence under Section 452 IPC, preparation is to be established and decision reported in Dal Chand vs. State (1966 Crl.LJ 236) was cited in support of his contentions. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that three persons were injured, though there are only minor injuries. The delay is not seen explained in the FIR. This may be due to the reason that they were in the hospital, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner has an arguable case in respect of offence under Section 452 IPC. Hence, for the purpose of bail, offence under Section 452 IPC shall be treated as one under Section 448 IPC. If the petitioners surrender before the police or the Magistrate Court, the offences included will be treated as Section 448 IPC instead of Section 452 IPC. However, considering the nature of allegations made, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners. With this observation, petition is disposed of. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl