IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 23RD APRIL 2010 / 3RD VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2493 of 2010 ----------------------------- CRIME No. 147/2010 OF KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DIST. ................. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------------- 1. PRAMOD, S/O. MAYANDI @ APPUNNI, AGED 36 YEARS, THANDANPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURUMBATHUR.P.O., THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. MAYANDI@ APPUNNI, AGED 31 YEARS, THANKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURUMBATHUR.P.O., THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.D.S.THUSHARA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTEDE BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.C.S. HRITHIK. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2493 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2010 O R D E R This is an anticipatory bail application filed by accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.147/2010 of Kuttippuram Police Station, Malappuram District under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 2. The allegation against the petitioners is that on April 12, 2010 at about 8 a.m. the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and manhandled and beat her and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 506(2) r/w Section 34 of IPC. 3. It is alleged in the petition that on the same day at about 10.40 a.m. the uncle of the defacto complainant in this case trespassed into the house of the petitioners and attacked the first petitioner and his mother for which Crime No.163/2010 was registered by the Kalpakamchery Police Station, that to escape from that case, the present case has been foisted against the petitioners and that the petitioners apprehend arrest and harassment by police and therefore anticipatory bail may be BA No. 2493 of 2010 -:2:- granted to the petitioners. 4. Notice given to the Public Prosecutor. Heard counsel for the petitioners and Public Prosecutor. 5. For the following reasons I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The defacto complainant is a relative of the first petitioner. This is essentially a family dispute. Further it is alleged that in another incident on the same day the uncle of defacto complainant attacked the first petitioner and caused injuries to him. For which Crime No.163/2010 was registered by the Kalpakamchery Police Station. The copy of the FIR in that case was produced. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and the facts that the petitioner and defacto complainant are relatives, I feel that the apprehension of the petitioners that they will be arrested and harassed at the hands of the police appears to be true. Therefore I feel that this is a fit case in which anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to release the petitioners on bail, if arrested, on BA No. 2493 of 2010 -:3:- executing a bond for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only)each with two solvent sureties for like sum each. If arrested and released on bail, the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the investigating officer as and when ordered. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, Judge ttb