IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5088 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.404/2008 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- E.BHADRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KAMARU PANICKER, KARTHIKA NIVAS, AYAMYARATHALA, THALAYAL DESOM, ARAMALUMMOODU P.O NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, 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 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.5088 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 342 and 354 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner trespassed into the house of one Omana and threatened her daughter-in-law and tied her up with a shawl found in the house and committed the alleged offences. On the basis of a complaint filed by the victim, a crime was registered against the petitioner under Sections 451, 342 and 354 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations made. The defacto-complainant had filed a false complaint earlier also, against petitioner alleging that he is having illicit relationship with her mother-in-law. In connection with this, he was called to the police station. The mother-in-law was also called to the police station and on finding that the allegations are false, they were sent back. Since the said attempt was futile, the defacto BA No.5088/08 2 complainant has now filed another complaint without any basis alleging offences under Sections 451, 342 and 354 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the offences under which the crime was registered were all bailable. But, subsequently, with a view to harass the petitioner, offence under Section 452, which is a non bailable offence, was also included. Though the incident allegedly occurred on 22.7.2008, the offence was altered under Section 452, only on 27.2.2008. Referring to the ingredients of Section 452 and 451 IPC, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case, offence under Section 452 will not be attracted. For Section 452 IPC to be attracted, the accused has to commit house trespass, after preparation of hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint. In this case, no such preparation can be spelt out from the allegations made. It is also submitted that after this incident, petitioner was assaulted by the husband of the victim and the defacto complainant and others and a crime was registered as crime No.406/08 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 427, 506(1) and 294(b) IPC. On hearing both sides, I find that it is only proper to grant BA No.5088/08 3 anticipatory bail to petitioner. Hence, the following order can be passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and make himself available for interrogation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. (ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. (iii) Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail and in case of breach of this condition, bail is liable to be cancelled. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl