IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3556 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CRMP.1714/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO. 160/2010 OF KOTTAYI POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 : ---------------------------------- BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KELAMALLI, KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, CHENNANKADU, KOTTAYI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, KOTTAYI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. K.S.SIVAKUMAR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3556 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 323, 354 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner(A2) along with two others committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant and assaulted him and his sister and also abused in filthy language and thereby committed the various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that accused nos.1 and 2 are brothers. De facto complainant is the son of the another brother(he is no more). Third accused is the son of A1. On knowing that de facto complainant's sister is in love with a boy, petitioner had gone to the house of de facto complainant to warn her and mend her way. At that time, first accused attacked de facto complainant, by using a stick and he sustained a fracture. Petitioner herein did not assault de facto complainant or anybody. He has not used any weapons and he is working in SBI as a security after the retirement from army. No injury is B.A. No. 3556 / 2010 2 sustained by de facto complainant in the incident. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the incident happened in the house of de facto complainant where he was residing with his mother and sister. His paternal uncle quarrelled with his mother and sister on account of some property dispute. A few days prior to the incident, they had come to the house and quarrelled with mother and sister. On the date of occurrence also, on account of the property dispute all the three accused came to the house, pushed open the door, and also pushed his mother and pulled her blouse. 5. On seeing this, de facto complainant pushed first accused, who inflicted injuries on his head by hitting with a stone. His sister intervened while second accused abused her and beat her also. De facto complainant also came in between and he was beaten with reaper. The neighbours came running, while the accused left the place. De facto complainant had an injury on the head and the injury is noted by the doctor. As per the F.I. Statement and he had serious injuries on the head. B.A. No. 3556 / 2010 3 6. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. There is nothing on record to show that de facto complainant is the aggressor. There is no case for petitioner that petitioners are residing in the de facto complainant's house. Petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln