IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3931 of 2010() ------------------------------------------- CRIME NO.489/2010 OF THRISSUR TOWN WEST POLICE STATION. .................... APPLICANTS/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- 1. SAJESH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, NEDUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR. 2. DIPIN DAS, S/O.DASAN, KAMATH HOUSE, KAMATH LANE, KOTTAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR TOWN WEST POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3931 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324, 452 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners(A1 and A2), in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant on 13.05.2010 at at about 11.30 P.M., and assaulted the de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that first accused made a complaint against de facto complainant and hence he was removed from the post of Secretary of the local committee of the DYFI. He was therefore, on enmical terms with the first accused. While the first accused was coming with the second accused and when he reached near the house of the de facto complainant, the de facto complainant was talking to another person and they wrongfully restrained petitioners and assaulted them. B.A. No. 3931 / 2010 2 4. The de facto complainant did not sustain any injury. The present complaint is filed only as a counter blast to the complaint made by first accused. The complaint against petitioners is lodged only on 01.06.2010. It is also submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the only non bailable offence is under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, but no incident happened inside the house. The incident happened only at the gate of the house of the de facto complainant and petitioners were assaulted there. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that first accused used a crash guard of the motor cycle and assaulted de facto complainant. He also sustained injuries. First accused is an accused in a case involving offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Second accused also slapped the de facto complainant. 6. On hearing both sides, what is revealed prima facie is that some incident happened at the gate of the de facto complainant and thereafter, another incident happened in the house of the de facto complainant. Merely because another crime B.A. No. 3931 / 2010 3 was registered in respect of the earlier incident which took place at the gate, it will not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail, in a case of this nature. According to de facto complainant, while he was taking to a friend at the gate and there was a quarrel with the petitioners. Thereafter, de facto complainant went inside the house, while petitioners followed him and assaulted. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln