IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6852 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 170/2008 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- 1. SRI.BIJU @ BIJUKUMAR, KOTTARATHIL, THITTAMEL, CHENGANNUR(NOW RESIDING AT PRASANTHI NILAYAM, KEEZHCHERIMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR). 2. SRI.MADHU, KARIPPALIL VEEDU, KEEZHCHERIMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6852 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of November,2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 294(b), 324, 452, 427 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, on 20-3-2008 at about 11.45 p.m. petitioners trespassed into a fast food centre, abused the security personnel and assaulted him using a chair. Mischief was also committed, causing damage to the articles there. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made and that incident happened at 9 p.m. when petitioners went there and asked for food. It was refused and hence there was a quarrel. But, nothing, as alleged had taken place. It is also submitted that charge was laid by the police, but petitioners were shown as absconding accused. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in the crime. First accused is an L.I.C. Officer and 2nd accused is looking after the property of another person. They are available in the station and police deliberately reported that they are absconding and hence, non bailable warrant was issued. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that charge sheet has been laid and investigation is over. Therefore, petitioners BA 6852/08 -2- may be directed to approach the trial court for appropriate relief. As per the allegations made, petitioners have assaulted de facto complainant and committed the offence at 11.45 p.m. on 20-3- 2008. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail. No special circumstances are pointed out to persuade this Court to invoke the power under section 438 Cr.P.C. It is needless to say that consideration of anticipatory bail and consideration of bail under section 437 Cr.P.C. are different. I also make it clear that dismissal of this petition is not a ground to refuse bail under section 437 Cr.P.C. However, petitioners are at liberty to raise all the contentions raised in this case before the court below also, if they surrender and file application for bail. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned without any delay and whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to execute the warrant issued against them at any time. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.