IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6492 of 2011() ----------------------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. SURESH KUMAR @ ANI, S/O.APPUKKUTTAN NAIR, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, KOLIYAKODE P.O., VENJARAMMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MANOJ A., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.APPUKKUTTAN NAIR, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, KOLIYAKODE P.O., VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HGIH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- B.A.No.6492 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are two among the three accused (A1 and A2), the other accused is yet to be identified, in a crime wherein they are alleged to have outraged the modesty of a woman and also assaulted her husband after trespassing upon their residential building. It is alleged that the first petitioner caught hold of the wife of the de- facto complainant, outraging her modesty, and when the de- facto complainant intervened, the first accused hit on his face with a stone, and as a result of which he has sustained fracture to two/three of his teeth. It is also alleged that the defacto complainant's house was also damaged by the accused. The case has been foisted on false allegations and the woman alleged to have been assaulted is a relative of one of the petitioners and, in fact, a civil dispute over a property adjacent to the residential building of the aforesaid woman has given to the filing of the false complaint, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. B.A.No.6492 of 2011 2 The application is opposed . The learned Public Prosecutor has made available the case diary in the above crime. Perusing the case diary and looking into the materials so far collected by the investigating agency, I find this is not a fit case where the petitioners can be granted discretionary relief of pre anticipatory bail. Outraging the modesty of a woman, after committing trespass over her residential building and assaulting her husband, when he intervened, the imputation made against the petitioners, is disclosed by the materials collected in the case diary, and there is room to suspect the complicity of the petitioners in such offences. The petitioners are not entitled to pre arrest bail and they have to seek for bail either approaching the investigating officer or the Magistrate court concerned. Petition dismissed sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. rkc //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE