IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1908 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.76/2010 OF PERUMBADAPPU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT) .......... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- 1. AKBAR, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, THEKKEYIL HOUSE, GRAMAM, VELIYAMCODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SAJEER, S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, POOKAYIL HOUSE, GRAMAM, VELIYAMCODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): STATE: ---------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBADAPPU POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010 ALONG WITH BA NO. 2120 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. Nos. 1908 & 2120 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 O R D E R These petitions are for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 452 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. According to prosecution, petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed into the house of de facto complainant, with intention to assault the de facto complainant and using reaper etc. They inflicted injuries on the de facto complainant and two other women in the house, who are his sister and wife. The incident happened on 12.03.2010 at about 8 P.M. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the incident did not happen as alleged. The incident did not happen in the house of the de facto complainant. There was an altercation in connection with destruction of a electric post and first accused in this case sustained injuries, as evidenced by Annexure-A. Both sides sustained only minor injuries, but with intention to refuse B.A. Nos. 1908 & 2120 / 2010 2 bail offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (prevention of atrocities)Act and Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code are included, it is submitted. No offence under Section SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act committed by the accused. It is also submitted that only names of two persons were mentioned in the F.I. Statement and others are falsely implicated. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation in the case revealed that all the accused were involved in the crime. The incident was witnessed by various persons and their statements are recorded. Three persons were injured in the incident and they had gone to the hospital. De facto complainant's wife and sister had gone to the hospital because of the assault. 5. In the F.I. statement itself it is mentioned that petitioners had trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and also called the de facto complainant with reference to his caste name and insulted him in the public. A female member was also insulted in the same manner. B.A. Nos. 1908 & 2120 / 2010 3 6. On hearing both sides and on considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. On a perusal of the case diary and the wound certificates etc., I am satisfied that petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail. I am not satisfied from the submissions made that offence under Section 452 of the Indian Peal Code or the offence under SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not prima facie made out. The incident happened as early as on 12.03.2010 and petitioners are bound to surrender to law. These petitions are dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln