IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 782 of 2010 CRIME NO.30 OF 2010 OF VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- C.P.SUDHEESH,S/O.RAJU,AGED 24 YEARS, CHANDANPURATH HOUSE,PAZHASSI, KUTTIATTOOR.PO, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP;BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 782 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.30 of 2010 of Valapattanam Police Station, Kannur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 452, 354, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The de facto complainant is a house wife aged 28 years. She has husband and two children. The prosecution case is that on 10.1.2010 at about 1.45 PM, the petitioner, who is a tipper lorry driver, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and caught hold of her. Her children were playing in the house. The daughter of the de facto complainant cried and came to the room. The petitioner locked the children in another room and continued his attack on the de facto complainant. The husband of the de facto complainant had gone to the nearby shop. On hearing the hue and B.A. NO.782 OF 2010 :: 2 :: cry the husband of the de facto complainant came back. The petitioner pushed him. The husband of the de facto complainant fell down. The de facto complainant and her husband were admitted in the hospital on the same day. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/