IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6373 of 2008() ----------------------------- (PATHANPURAM POLICE STATION CRIME NO.619/2008) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 ---------------------------------------------- 1. KARUNAKARAN, KALEEKAL VEEDU PUNNALA P.O., NELLIMURUPPU, PATHANAPURAM. 2. SUNIL ANU BHAVAN, CHEMPARAMAN, PUNNALA P.O., PATHANAPURAM. 3. RATNEESH, INDIRA BHAVANAM, VALAKODE P.O., T.B.JUNCTION, PUNALUR. 4. RAJESH, INDIRA BHAVANAM, ATTUMALA, VALAKODE P.O., T.B.JUNCTION, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No.6373 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 427, 452, 506(1) read with Section 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 29.9.2008 at about 10 p.m. the petitioners trespassed into the house of de facto complainant and assaulted the de facto complainant and two others and also caused mischief by damaging the articles in the house. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that first petitioner is aged 72 years. The 2nd petitioner is his son. The petitioners 3 and 4 are the grand children of the first petitioner. They had gone to the house of de facto complainant in view of a phone call received from de facto complainant inviting for settlement of the dispute between the members of two families, who are neighbours. There were disputes between them for a considerably long time and believing the words, petitioners [B.A.No.6373/08] 2 went to the house for settlement. From there, first petitioner was assaulted. He sustained contusion and aberration etc. and a complaint was lodged before the police but no crime was registered. This is only a counter-blast to the incident in which the first petitioner was assaulted. It is also submitted that first petitioner is aged 72 years and, at least, he may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. This petition is opposed. The nature of allegations reveal that the petitioners have committed house trespass and caused damage to the articles in the house and in the nature of allegations made it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. On hearing both sides, however, it is not clear whether petitioners have made preparations to commit any offence and though damage is caused, no weapon is allegedly carried by them while going to the scene. The assault was made only with hands. In such circumstances, for the purpose of bail, offence under Section 452 IPC can be treated as one under Section 448 IPC by the court and the police. However, in the nature of allegations made, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer or the Magistrate court [B.A.No.6373/08] 3 concerned and co-operate with the investigation. With this direction and observation, this petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.