IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7802 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.351/2008 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------- JAYAN, ADHIYARATH HOUSE, MONODY, VELLIKULANGARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 7802 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. The alleged offences are under sections 323, 354 and 506 (1) of IPC. De facto complainant is a teacher. Petitioner is her husband's friend. Petitioner wanted a loan to be raised for which de facto complainant's friend, who is also another teacher, stood as surety to raise the loan. Thereafter de facto complainant committed default. The teacher, who stood as surety, approached de facto complainant and stated that she received notice because of the default. The de facto complainant and her husband told this fact to petitioner and wanted him to pay off the loan. Infuriated by this, on 9.11.2008 at about 6.30 p.m. he committed house trespass and criminally intimidated de facto complainant's husband and molested de facto complainant and also assaulted her mother and three year old child. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had arranged a surety for the de facto complainant's husband to raise a loan. He [B.A,No.7802/08] 2 defaulted payment and hence the surety approached the petitioner and informed about the same. To persuade de facto complainant's husband to pay off the loan, petitioner had gone to the house of de facto complainant and when there was a scuffle and petitioner also suffered injury, as evidenced by Annexue-II. The other allegations are not correct. 3. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the story is the other way. It is the petitioner who has defaulted the payment as per prosecution case. There is nothing to support the case put forward by the accused. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. There is nothing to support the case put forward by petitioner that the loan was defaulted by de facto complainant's husband etc. Considering the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to co-operate with investigation, since the crime is registered as early as on 10.11.2008. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer or Magistrate court concerned and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he [B.A,No.7802/08] 3 surrenders or not, the police is at liberty to arrest him at any time and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.