IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3766 of 2010() ------------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.233/2010 OF AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- LOHITHAKSHAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING AT MULLERIA, DELAMPADY, MULLERIA P.O., KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3766 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 354 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 06.06.2010 at about 2.30 P.M., petitioner trespassed into the kitchen of the house of the de facto complainant and pulled her maxi and thereby outraged her modesty. When the husband of the de facto complainant intervened he also assaulted him by using iron rod and he sustained injury to the nasal bone. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant's husband owes some money to the petitioner and there was some difference of opinion relating to this. Therefore, a false case is lodged against petitioner. It is also submitted that 452 of the Indian Penal Code will not be attracted in this case. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner are serious. The de facto complainant's husband B.A. No. 3766 / 2010 2 sustained a fracture to the nasal bone and the petitioner used an iron rod to inflict injury. He has also acted in an undesirable manner to the de facto complainant. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The injury sustained by the de facto complainant's husband is also grievous in nature and hence I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. 6. The incident happened as early as on 06.06.2010. Petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. Petitioner is at liberty to surrender either before the investigating officer or before the Magistrate Court concerned. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln