IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6703 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 549 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------ NITHIN KUMAR.G, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. GOPINATHAN, GOKULAM HOUSE, KUDAYAMPADI, AYMANAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU ADV. S.K. PREMRAJ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S.SIVA KUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ================== B.A.No. 6703 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 452, 308 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, the first accused had misappropriated some amounts from the firm of defacto complainant, while he was working as a Manager in the establishment. Defacto complainant questioned first accused on this. Infuriated by this, eleven gundas trespassed into the establishment and assaulted defacto complainant using chair and destroyed the articles there and a crime was registered on the basis of a complaint made by the defacto complainant. Petitioner is one of such persons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner only interfered when there was some quarrel between first accused and the defacto complainant. But, even according to prosecution, petitioner was not guilty to any overt acts. It cannot be said that he committed trespass, since he is an employee in the firm and he is entitled to be present there, it is B.A.No. 6703 of 2008 -2- submitted. The first accused had filed a petition for anticipatory bail as Bail Application No. 6600 of 2008 and this court made observation to the effect that the offence committed in this case. Case will be treated as offence under Sections 448 and 324 I.P.C., instead of Sections 308 and 452 of I.P.C. The same observation may be made in this case also, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, on going through the order referred above, I am satisfied that there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail. However, for the purpose of bail under Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the offences involved can be treated as under Sections 448 and 324 of I.P.C instead of Sections 452 and 308 I.P.C. It is made clear that this observation is made only for the purpose of bail. With this observation, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE rhs