IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 325 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.343/2008 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION ......... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED -------------------- AJITH @ PODIYAN, S/O. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, KOTTARAKKARI JUNCTION, VEYILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSEUCUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 325 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 452, 324 and 427 IPC. According to prosecution, on 29-12-2008 at about 7 p.m. petitioner committed house trespass into the shop of de facto complainant and assaulted him using iron board kept in front of the shop and also damaged to the article in the shop and caused a loss of Rs.25,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant misbehaved to petitioner's sister-in-law and she had given a complaint to the Vanitha Cell and also to the police. This was done as insisted by her husband who is working abroad and since de facto complainant was creating problem to his wife. On knowing that such a complaint was given, de facto complainant has given a false complaint into the police, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the nature of allegations made and considering the nature of damage caused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature BA 325/09 -2- of allegations made, I am satisfied that it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. However, the only non bailable offence is under section 452 IPC. As per the materials in the case diary, even as per the admitted case of prosecution, petitioner had not gone to the shop armed with any weapons. In such circumstances, I find that for the purpose of bail, offence under section 452 IPC can be treated as one under section 448 IPC. The incident occurred on 29-12-2008 and petitioner is not available for investigation. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) Petitioner surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) In case of surrender, the offence involved will be treated as one under section 448 IPC instead of 452 IPC. It is made clear that this observation is made only for the purpose of bail. 3) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by BA 325/09 -3- this Court, since on the facts in this case, this Court has ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in any subsequent bail application will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.