IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3702 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.330/2010 OF KUNNATHNADU POLICE STATION .......... PETITIONER (S): --------------------- 1. MATHEW, S/O. MATHAI, AGED 65 YEARS, KOTTANADU HOUSE, WEST MORAKKALA, KUMARAPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. MARY, W/O. MATHEW, AGED 62 YEARS, KOTTANADU HOUSE, WEST MORAKKALA, KUMARAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PERUMBAVOOR, REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3702 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324, 326, 354, 294-B, 427, 506(ii) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners, not being members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, instituted a false and vexatious criminal proceedings against de facto complainant and thereby committed the various offences under Sections 120 (B), 182 and read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code or Sections 3(1) (VIII) and 3(I)(IX) of the SC/ST(Prevention of Attrocities) Act. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that de facto complainant along with his son, trespassed into the property of the petitioners and assaulted second accused, who is a woman aged 58 years and she sustained injuries to the leg and she was hospitalised on 18.05.2009. She was discharged from the hospital only on 21.05.2009, as evidenced by Anenxure-I. A complaint was lodged before the police in respect of this incident, B.A. No. 3702 of 2010 2 but no action was taken. Therefore, a private complaint was filed before the Magistrate Court and it was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Though a crime was registered by police, it is understood that a refer report was filed by the police on that matter but petitioners have not received any notice on refer report. It is not also known whether the report is acted upon by the complainant. Petitioners are pursuing the complaint filed by them against de facto complainant and others and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioners has instituted a false complaint. It is only as a retaliation to the complaint filed by petitioners that the present complaint is filed, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through Annexure-1 medical certificate issued to the second accused and Annexure-2 private complaint and various facts and circumstances discussed above, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail. Hence the following order is passed: B.A. No. 3702 of 2010 3 1. Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today. 2. On such surrender, they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs. 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the condition that petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln