IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4481 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 210/2008 OF VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:- -------------------------------------------- 1. ANTO, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O THOMAS, VELLANI HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. WILSON, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O THOMAS, VELLANI HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.210 OF 2008), OF VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION. BY P.P. SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4481 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 452, 294B, 323, 354 and 427 read with section 34 IPC . According to the prosecution, petitioners who are father and children trespassed into the house of the defacto- complainant, abused him and his wife. 1st accused assaulted him, caused damage to the articles and financial loss to him. The 3rd accused was standing on the sitout of the house of the defacto-complainant and he abused the defacto-complainant and his wife. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was an altercation between the parties in connection with another incident. The 2nd accused was constructing a house and he wanted construction materials to be carried through the defacto-complainant's property, to which, he was not agreeable. Therefore, some wordy altercation occurred and motivated by this, the present crime is registered on the basis of false allegations, it is submitted. BA 4481/2008 -2- 4. This application is opposed. It is pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor that the Sessions Court considered the bail application filed by the petitioners and 3rd accused and anticipatory bail was granted only to the 3rd accused. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the order of the learned Sessions Judge, I find that the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to accused No.3, taking into consideration the limited nature of his involvement, but anticipatory bail was refused to the petitioners. I do not find any reason to take a different view. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.