IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3434 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.348/08 OF CHAVAKKADU POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED ------------------------ 1. AJI P.K., S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY PELI VEEDU, ORUMANAYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK 2. RAGHESH P.M., S/O.MOHANAN PULICKANVEEDU, ORUMANAYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK 3. SREENATH P., S/O.MURALEEDHARAN PANTHAMPULAKKIL, ORUMANAYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK 4. ABHILASH P.K., S/O.KRISHNAN PUNNA HOUSE, ORUMANAYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK 5. SHINE P.N., S/O.NARAYANAN PUNACKALVEEDU, ORUMANAYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK 6. PRASAD P.V., S/O.VASU, PENGHADU VEEDU ORUMANAYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, CHAVAKKADU, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 3434 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. Alleged offences are under sections 442, 323, 341, 427 and 294 (b) IPC. According to the prosecution, the petitioners along with certain identifiable persons, in furtherance of common intention, attacked workers of the bus, trespassed into the same and assaulted the conductor, cleaner and committed mischief by breaking front glass of the bus causing a loss of Rs.14,000/-. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the allegations made. They are only people of the locality who are not involved in the offences. The only non- bailable offence is under section 452 i.e., for committing house-trespass after preparation for hurt or assault or wrongful restrain. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the facts of this case, the said offence will not be made out. 4. On hearing both sides, I find that as per Section 442 IPC, house trespass is defined and it is laid down that who who ever commits criminal BA 3434/08 -2- trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship or as a place for custody of property is said to commit house-trespass. The bus is not used as a human dwelling nor is a place for worship nor a place for the custody of property. In the above circumstances, offence under section 452 may not be prima facie attracted in this case. Therefore only bailable offences are involved in this case and hence no anticipatory bail can be granted in this case. It is however made clear that the petitioner may seek remedy before the trial court, in which event, it will be proceeded with as if offence under section 452 IPC is not involved. The application is disposed of accordingly. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.