IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3734 of 2008() ----------------------------- Cr.NO.90/08 OF VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER --------------------------- RAMACHANDRAN.M , AGED 46 YEARS S/O. KORAN.K.V.,SREELAKSHMI, KOLACHERY PARAMBA, KOLACHERY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER (CRIME NO.90 OF 2008 OF VALLAPATTANAM POLICE STATION , KASARAGOD DISTRICT) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 3734 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioner trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and pulled down the compound wall and when the defacto complainant questioned the same, he was abused her, calling the caste name and insulted and threatened to kill her and therefore First Information Statement was given and a case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 447, 427, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was an order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate to cut a tree which was standing in the property of the defacto complainant in a dangerous condition, but the defacto complainant did not comply with the same. The matter was taken up before the police and it was compromised and in spite of that, the defacto complainant refused to comply with the order of the learned Sub Divisional BA.3734/08 2 Magistrate. The defacto complainant has given a false complaint only to avoid compliance of the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a knife is used by the petitioner and it is to be recovered. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the petitioner is required for the recovery of weapons and for custodial interrogation. Hence, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.