IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7993 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.3287/2008 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------- 1. NISHANTH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, MANAYIL HOUSE, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, CHUNANGAMVELI, ALUVA. 2. PAREED, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, MANAYIL HOUSE, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, CHUNANGAMVELI, ALUVA. BY ADV. MR.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7993 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 149, 326 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners 1 and 2, along with other persons, allegedly committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant and committed the various offences as members of the unlawful assembly, after forming themselves into an unlawful assembly. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there is a civil dispute between de facto complainant and petitioners. A suit was filed by de facto complainant against petitioners and no injunction was granted in favour of de facto complainant. He is a mortgagee, according to petitioners. It was also pointed out that false allegations are made against petitioners which are revealed on investigation itself. No grievous hurt was caused by beating and de facto complainant himself subsequently stated that he had fallen down and sustained injuries. BA.7993/08 2 Therefore, a report was filed to delete Section 326 IPC. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the light of the subsequent statement given by petitioner and the fact that a report is filed to delete offence under Section 326 IPC, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail. On hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner and the following order is passed: Petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. ii). Petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witnesses or intimidate them or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.