IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4881 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.341/2008 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED --------------------------------------- RATHEESH, S/O.MOHANAN, RESIDING AT PLAVILA POTHUVAL, PUTHANVEEDU, THALAYAL ARALAMOOD, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU SRI.P.O.THOMAS RESPONDENT: STATE ------------------ THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, 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 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.4881 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324, 452 and 379 read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, on 29.6.2008 at about 2.30 p.m., petitioner along with first accused committed house trespass into the residential building of the defacto complainant, who is a police constable and assaulted him. The first accused used an iron rod and the second accused kicked him. The first accused also took away an amount of Rs.250/- and a mobile phone from the defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He is falsely implicated only because he happened to be the friend of the first accused, who is a juvenile. The case has been falsely foisted against the petitioner by the police constable, against whom, the mother of the first accused had filed a petition before the Womens Commission, since he had been harassing her for quite sometime. Annexure A2 is the copy of the complaint. BA No.4881/08 2 4. The case was referred to Lok Adalath for settling the issues, since the police constable is involved. But, in spite of the information conveyed to him by the learned Public Prosecutor to appear before Lok Adalath, he did not turn up. Therefore, it is submitted that the defacto complainant is not intending to even settle the issues, but, he is bent upon harassing the petitioner,0 without any basis. 5. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the first accused was arrested and released on bail, being a juvenile. But, on questioning him, it is revealed that the mobile phone was handed over to the second accused who is the petitioner herein. Unless he is interrogated, the mobile phone cannot be seized and therefore, petitioner is required for interrogation. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that an order can be passed protecting the interest of both sides. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the BA No.4881/08 3 arresting officer on the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation. (ii) He shall co-operate with the investigation. (iii) He shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. (iv) He shall not commit any offence while on bail. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl