IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3833 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.189/10 OF KONGAD POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DIST. .................... (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------- SYED, S/O. POOKKARATH KUNHAMMED VAIDYAR, AGED 39, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.2/16, THIRUMITTAKODE PANCHAYATH, KARUKAPUTHUR DESOM, CHAZHIYATTIRI AMSOM, CHARIYATTITI POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3833 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 13th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 354, 427 and 452 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner (A2) along with few others, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with sticks, committed house trespass into the house of defacto complainant and assaulted defacto complainant and his wife. He also outraged the modesty of defacto complainant's wife, damaged the window glass and the door and thereby committed the various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that defacto complainant is on inimical terms with the petitioner. Petitioner had purchased 1 acre 70 cents of property and out of this, petitioner assigned a portion of the property to defacto complainant's brother and sister. This was not to the liking of defacto complainant. Therefore, he caused his mother to file a partition suit and in the plaint schedule property, he included BA NO. 3833/10 2 petitioner's property also. This complaint is also lodged for harassing the petitioner, without any reason. No serious injury is sustained by any person. It is also submitted that the house in which defacto complainant is residing was rented out by petitioner to defacto complainant's mother and hence, offence under Section 452 will not be attracted in this case, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the defacto complainant, his wife, children and mother are residing in the house in which petitioner and others committed house trespass. Sticks were used for the commission of the offences and they are not yet recovered. Learned Public Prosecutor however, conceded that there are no serious injury on the defacto complainant. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the only non- bailable offence in this case is under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. Though various submissions are made by learned counsel, there is nothing to indicate or probabilise that such offence is not attracted in this case or that petitioner has not committed such offence. In the above circumstances, I do not BA NO. 3833/10 3 think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. 6. No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs