IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5417 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.352/08 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1,2 & 6 : ---------------------------------------- 1. ANEESH.D.R. SHEEJA BHAVAN, ARAMTHANAM, VAMANAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AJEESH KUMAR, MANNARU KONATHU VEEDU, PEDIKULAM, PULIMATH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PRASANTH T.R., NEDUMPURATH VEEDU, KARETTE, VAMANAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.5417 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 427, 323, 324, 379 of I.P.C. According to the prosecution, the petitioners along with others trespassed into the office of a cashew company, in which the defacto complainant is an employee, assaulted him, committed mischief in the building and also committed theft of a mobile phone. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a lorry was being taken into the cashew company, while it hit against an electric post, the line was damaged thereby and there was lack of light in locality and people of the locality were agitated and some incident happened. But things have not transpired as alleged. Though mobile phone is allegedly lost, offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. was included only as per a report dated 01.08.2008, after about 5 days of the incident. Such an allegation was not there in the First Information Statement, it is submitted. The only non bailable offence is under Section 452 of I.P.C. But in the circumstances in which the incident happened, it cannot be said B.A.5417 of 2008 2 that the allegations would constitute offence under Section 452 of I.P.C., it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners trespassed into the building and committed mischief in the cashew company. But it is true that the allegation of offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. was brought in only after 5 days of the incident. However, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 7 days from today and in the event of their arrest, if any, they will be released on bail on their executing bond for 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer on condition that they will co-operate with the investigation and report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac