IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3274 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.401/2010 OF THRISSUR TOWN WEST POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. RAJAN.K.K,S/O.K.K.KITTAN, KIZHEKEPARAMBIL HOUE,PUTHURKARA HARISREE NAGAR DESOM,AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. 2. RAHUL,AGED 17 YEARS,S/O.RAJAN.K.K, KIZHEKEPARAMBIL HOUSE,PUTHURKARA HARISREE NAGAR DESOM,AYYANTHOLE VILLAG,THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM(CRIME NO.401/2010 OF THRISSUR TOWN WEST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3274 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 447, 452, 341, 324, 354 and 427 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 compound of the house of the de facto complainant, wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and assaulted his mother and when the father intervened, he was also assaulted. Petitioner also outraged modesty of the two women by pulling their sarees. The incident happened on 01.05.2010 at about 7 P.M. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that one Sandhya, who is the neighbour of the petitioners owed some money to first accused. When she refused to pay back the money, he was forced to file a suit against her. The copy of the plaint is Annexure-5. He also filed a criminal complaint against her as Annexure-6 alleging offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. De B.A. No. 3274 / 2010 2 facto complainant in this case is a close friend of said Sandhya and they joined hands to harass the petitioners' and his family members. They came to the petitioners' house on 30.04.2010 and threatened and abused first accused. Petitioner also filed a petition against the said Sandhya and a receipt was also issued from the police station and it is Annexure-2. 4. Immediately on the next day, on 01.05.2010 at about 7 P.M., first accused was assaulted by the said Sandhya, de facto complainant and husbands of both these women and their two friends. He sustained injuries and he was admitted in the hospital on the same day. It is also submitted that when the first accused was being taken to the hospital, de facto complainant and others followed them to the hospital and first accused was assaulted by de facto complainant's husband and his two friends from the hospital. A complaint was lodged in respect of the said incident also and a crime was also registered on the same day against the assailants. 5. On knowing that first accused was admitted in the hospital, a false complaint was filed against petitioner by the de B.A. No. 3274 / 2010 3 facto complainant after seven days of the incident. Not only the first accused, but his son, who is aged only 16 years is also dragged into a false case. The present allegations made at a highly belated stage and no incident as happened in the alleged complaint. The present complaint is made only as a retaliation to the complaint made by first accused. 6. My attention is also drawn to the fact that as per the allegations in the F.I. Statement, first accused acted in an obscene manner, by lifting his thothi and that was stated to be the starting point of the alleged incident. Learned counsel for petitioners strongly contended that it is highly unlikely that a father will do any such act in front of his own son, who is aged only 16 years. The allegations are made only with an intention to harm the petitioners, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that originally offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code was included but subsequently it was deleted. As per the allegations in the complaint, petitioners outraged the modesty of two women by pulling their saree. The incident happened in the house and B.A. No. 3274 / 2010 4 hence offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code is included. However, it is conceded that no explanation is given for the delay in filing the complaint. 6. On hearing both sides, considering the various submissions made, I find that petitioners have a strong and arguable case regarding the place from where the incident happened and also the fact that the present complaint is a counterblast to the three complaints made by first petitioner referred to in the foregoing paragraphs. The wound certificate reveal that first accused sustained a lacerated injury on the forehead (2cm X 1 cm X ½cm) and it was sutured also whereas, de facto complainant had only complaint of pain. Petitioners will be able to establish the case only during trial. If the petitioners are arrested and remanded, in the meantime, they are likely to suffer irreparable injury and loss. In such circumstances, I find that in the interest of justice anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners and hence the following order is passed. 1. Petitioners shall, in the event of their arrest be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs. 10,000/- each B.A. No. 3274 / 2010 5 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on condition that they shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. 2). This order will be in force only for a period of one month from today and in the meantime, petitioner shall seek regular bail from the court concerned. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln