IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3331 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.48/2008 OF VECHOOCHIRA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS; --------------------------- 1. SREEKUMAR, SREE PADAM, ERUMELI P.O. 2. PRADEEP, USHA NIVAS,ERUMELI, 3. SASI, PUTHIYATHU HOUSE,MAKKAPPUZHA, RANI. 4. SASI P.K., MALIKA VEEDU,MATTANNUR KARA, ERUMELI. 5. P.R.VISWANATHAN,MALAYANIYIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA, ERUMELI. 6. C.K.JAYAN,CHENNOTHU HOUSE,ERUMELI. 7. R.V.SHARMA,RAMYA BHAVAN, KANAKAPALAM P.O., ERUMELI. 8. RATYHEESH KUMAR,PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, MUTTAPPALLIL P.O.,VIA MUKKOOTTUTHARA. 9. K.B.MANOJ, MALIKAVEETTIL, KARIMKAMPIL,ERUVELI P.O. 10. M.S.KARUNAKARAN,MATTATHIL MAKKAL VEEDU, VAZHAKKALA, ERUMELI. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 3331 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008 O R D E R According to the prosecution, petitioners 1 to 9 committed criminal trespass into the house of the defacto-complainant, manhandled her and caused damage to the widow of her house by beating with iron rode, pulled her down, outraged modesty and snatched away a gold chain from her neck. The incident happened on 7-5-2008 and the F.I.R. was registered on the next day. A crime is registered against petitioners 1 to 9 under sections 143, 144, 147, 149, 452, 323, 354, 427, 379 read with section 148 IPC. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that the 10th petitioner is not involved in the offence and he is not required for the purpose of the case. The police is not intended to arrest him. The above submission is recorded. 3. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that weapons have not been recovered so far and so also the alleged stolen gold ornaments. Therefore, custodial interrogation of petitioners 1 to 9 are required and hence their request is opposed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is a falsely foisted case. Annexure-V F.I.R was registered on a complaint made by the 1st petitioner against the defacto- BA 3331/08 -2- complainant and her husband alleging offences under sections 457, 427, 380 read with section 34 IPC for having committed offences on the same day at the same place. It is also pointed out that the property does not belong to the defacto-complainant as evidenced by the sale deed, Annexure-II. Sales-tax was also paid and ownership certificate also issued to the 1st petitioner as evidenced by Annexures III and IV. Therefore, the allegation of trespass will not stand, it is submitted. The learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that the mischief is actually committed to the property belonging to the petitioner by the defacto-complainant and others. 4. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that there is an assertion of right over the same property by both sides the accused and the defacto- complainant. There is a civil dispute and two criminal cases have arisen as an offshoot. The petitioners' custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of recovery of the alleged stolen article. In the circumstances, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn. BA 3331/08 -3-