IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7766 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.348/08 OF KURATHIKADU POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- SHANU, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUMON, VALIYAPARAMBIL THUNDIL, CHERUKUNNAM MURI, THEKKEKKERA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURATHIKKADU. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 7766 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 452, 324 and 427 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 12.11.2008 at about 12 p.m., petitioner committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant and attacked her by using an iron rod and inflicted injuries on her. During the tussle, de facto complainant lost Rs.3000/- and mischief was also committed in the house by causing damage. 3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, de facto complainant and petitioner are relatives and there was some transaction between them. The de facto complainant did not give back the gold chain which was given by petitioner for pledging. When demands were made to return this, there was heated exchange of words on 12.11.2008. Because of the close contact of de facto complainant with the S.I. of Police and to wreak vengeance, the present complaint is falsely foisted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant sustained an injury on the ear and iron rod was used and offence was committed in the house of de facto complainant, who is a woman. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the rival [B.A.No.7766/08] 2 contentions and the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner will be required for the purpose of recovery of weapon and even effective investigation. The crime was registered on 12.11.2008 and the petitioner is not available for investigation and hence the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, the police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entrained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.