IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7916 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 931/2008 OF VADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- NAZAR, S/O.KHADER, AGED 35 YEARS, AMBALATHUVEETTIL, NADUVILAKARA P.O., VADANAPPILLY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, VADANAPPILLY, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY P.P. SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7916 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of January,2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 452 and 332 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner trespassed into the Electricity Office and assaulted an Overseer, asking him what he had done etc., and deterred him from discharging his official duty. On the complaint of the Overseer, the Asst. Executive Officer lodged an First Information Statement, based on which, F.I.R. was registered against petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is an illiterate person. He has six cents of property and his neighbour wanted to draw an electric line over petitioner's property, which was objected to by petitioner, since he will not be able to construct a proper house in future, if drawing is allowed. Several times, the neighbour attempted to get petitioner's consent and official in the K.S.E.B. were also influenced by him to get consent from petitioner. Petitioner was called to the K.S.E.B. office by the Overseer. He went there and petitioner's signature was obtained fraudulently by the Overseer and later, the line was drawn over the petitioner's property while petitioner was not available in the house. BA 7916 /08 -2- 4. Petitioner's wife objected to this, when it was made known to her that a consent was obtained from petitioner. When petitioner knew that consent was fraudulently obtained by him, he went to the office and he found Overseer standing on the road. There was an altercation between petitioner and overseer regarding obtaining of signature from petitioner and nothing more had happened. The complaint is lodged falsely against petitioner and hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations are serious in nature, but nothing is stated in the complaint as to why petitioner had acted in the manner against the Overseer. 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner and hence, the following order is passed:- (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail, on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to BA 7916 /08 -3- the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:- i) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the the Investigating Officer as and when directed. ii) Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.