IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4416 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.234/08 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. RAJESH, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 25 YEARS, PALAPARAMBATH HOUSE, IRINGANNOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. MANOJAN, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 27 YEARS, VADAKKENELLOLI HOUSE, IRINGANNUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAPURAM POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP;BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No.4416 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 308, 452 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, A1 to A6 formed into an unlawful assembly and attacked the de facto complainant and caused injury with the common object to committing criminal trespass. and also offence under Section 308 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners' names were not mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that no other crime is alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, going by the dictum laid down in Baladin v. State of U.P.(AIR 1956 SC 181) the mere presence of the petitioners will not be sufficient to find persons guilty of the offence. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though the names of the petitioners are not mentioned in F.I.R., the involvement of two more identifiable persons were stated therein and they were identified by the 2 witnesses also. The petitioners have trespassed into the room of de facto complainant and the other accused were armed with deadly weapons like wooden stick etc. The de facto complainant in an attempt to escape jumped from the first floor of the building. 5. On hearing both sides, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioners were mere innocent onlookers. On the facts and circumstances of the case, even the offending entry itself attracts offence under Section 452 of IPC. Therefore, the dictum laid down in Baladin v. State of U.P. (AIR 1956 SC 181) does not, prima facie, appears to be applicable to the facts of this case, as revealed at this stage. I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.