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. 305 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.437/08 OF CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER ------------------------------ SREENIVASAN.M S/O.KANNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, MIDHUN NIVAS, CHATTUKAPPARA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE S.H.O, CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 305 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 323, 354, 506(i) and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner borrowed some amount from de facto complainant. He did not pay back the money. Therefore, petitioner's wife was informed. Infuriated by this, petitioner committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant, abused her, criminally intimidated her and also assaulted her. She was also molested by petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has not committed any such offences. In fact de facto complainant's son had borrowed money from petitioner and a complaint was also given. This was on a promise to offer a visa to Soudi Arabia. The amount was not returned and visa was also not arranged. A complaint was lodged against de facto complainant's son. Annexure A1 is the copy of the complaint. Thereafter, this complaint is filed. BA.305/09 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations, petitioner owes money to de facto complainant. In Annexure A1, no date is mentioned and the date on which complaint is lodged before the court is not seen from Annexure A1 complaint. In the nature of allegations made, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made, I do not find that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Though Annexure A1 is produced, it cannot be ascertained from the said document whether the complaint is filed or not, when the complaint is filed etc. It is only a copy of the complaint allegedly filed. Without any date in the complaint, no reliance can be placed on the same, to issue any order in favour of petitioner. The crime is registered as early as on 20.11.2008 and petitioner is not available for investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed BA.305/09 3 in accordance with law. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.