IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2324 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.186/2010 ON THE FILE OF KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PETITIONER: -------------------- BIJU SEBATIAN, AGED 39, S/O. SEBASTIAN, THEKKEKUTT, SANTHIGRAM.P.O, KALKUNATHAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.K.O.MANUEL (KOPRAMB) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBILC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION, KATTAPPANA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2010, ALONG WITH BA NO. 2327 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- B.A .No. 2324 & 2327 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this 31st day of May, 2010. ORDER These petitions are for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 323, 427 read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, on 27.3.2010 at about 6.40 p.m., petitioners committed trespass in to the shop building of de facto complainant's husband and voluntarily caused hurt to him and also destroyed some soda bottle. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners have not committed any offence. De facto complainant's husband arranged a loan for first accused on high rate of interest through a private financier. Though the amount was paid, de facto complainant's husband demanded more amount which first was not prepared to pay. He told de facto complainant's husband that the matter will be informed to the police and hence a false complaint is made. It is also pointed out that no injury is sustained by de facto complainant's husband, though some persons have allegedly assaulted him. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is a motive B.A.Nos.2324 & 2327/2010] 2 for the offence. De facto complainant's husband had arranged a loan for first accused but he failed to pay the amount and when demands were made for return of money, he had committed the offence along with another. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the facts pointed out , I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed 1) Petitioners (A1 and A2) shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within 7 days from today. 2) In the event of arrest, petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions: (i) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10 a.m. and 1p.m. (ii) Petitioners shall not influence or B.A.Nos.2324 & 2327/2010] 3 intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence. (iii) In case petitioner is involved in similar offence, bail is liable to be cancelled. Petitions are allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.