IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 279 of 2010() ---------------------------- (CRIME NO.580/2009 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT) PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------- 1. LALU, AGED 26 YEARS, SON OF CLETUS, RESIDING AT PUTHENTHURUTH, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. KISHORE, AGED 28 YEARS, SON OF CLETUS, RESIDING AT PUTHENTHURUTH, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J -------------------- Bail Application No.279 Of 2010 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 323, 324, 427, 294(b) and read with Section 34 of the IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners (A1 and A2) in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and assaulted her and her husband and also destroyed articles in the house. First accused used a sword and the de facto complainant and her husband sustained injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no incident as alleged had taken place. De facto complainant's husband was drunk on the date of occurrence and he was taken to his house by the petitioners. On reaching house, de facto complainant did not like it and she alleged that the petitioners were responsible for making her husband drink. There was altercation between the two and in the course of the incident, the de facto complainant sustained some minor injuries. The parties are relatives. Bail Application No.279 Of 2010 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the de facto complainant's husband used to get drunk and de facto complainant believed that the petitioners were responsible for the same. This fact was brought to the notice of the petitioners while they attacked de facto complainant's husband and pushed him down into a canal. After this incident, again, they trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant through the back door and inflicted injuries and committed mischief etc. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegation made, nature of the injuries sustained and the place where the incident happened, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The counter allegations made by petitioners are not even probabalised. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv