IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2758 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRMP.569/2010 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... (Crime No.236/2010 of Konny Police Station) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ANIL, AGED 37, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, CHECKAL MURI VEEDU, CHITTOORMUKKU, MANGARAM MURI, KONNI VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ANILKUMAR K.N.PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.2758 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b), 324 and 452 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 24/03/2010, at about 5:30 p.m, petitioner trespassed into the house of de facto complainant with a stone and uttered obscene words and hit de facto complainant with the stone and inflicted injuries on him. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that while petitioner was walking along the road, de facto complainant's son, an Excise Guard, came on the way and there was a quarrel between them. A stone was thrown and it hit against de facto complainant. But, no incident happened inside the house. Offence under Section 452 is not committed and that is the only non-bailable offence alleged in this case. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer, as directed by this court and he was interrogated. He reported no objection in granting anticipatory bail to petitioner. 6. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant B.A No.2758 OF 2010 2 anticipatory bail. But, I am satisfied that petitioner has definite defence regarding involvement of Section 452 of IPC and it can be established only during trial. If anticipatory bail is refused it is likely that it will result in miscarriage of justice. In such circumstances, I pass the following order. (1) Prayer for anticipatory bail by petitioner is rejected. (2) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer concerned within seven days from today. (3) On such surrender, if the petitioner is arrested, offence under Section 452 of IPC will be treated as not included for the purpose of bail. Petition is disposed of accordingly. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv