IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3727 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.474/2008 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/A1 AND A2 ------------------------------------- 1. RAJEEVAN AGE 25 YEARS, S/O.SASI, MANGALATHU THARAYIL, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE KAYAMKULAM 2. SAJEEVAN, AGED 26 YEARS, BROTHER OF RAJEEVAN, MANGALATHU THARAYIL, DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.R.REJI RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA , REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP. THE S.I. OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.3727 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2. 3. According to the prosecution, the petitioners had trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and abused him in filthy language etc. A crime was registered under Sections 452, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners do not even know the defacto complainant. They have no idea about him. But, this case is falsely foisted against the petitioners at the instance of the police officials themselves. According to him, the petitioners were hospitalised from 21.5.2008 to 28.5.2008. The alleged offence in this case is on 27.5.2008. He produced documents also to prove the above contention. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the petitioners were hospitalised since the petitioners were BA 3727/08 2 manhandled by the Sub Inspector of Police and they had sustained injury. It is also pointed out that a petition is pending before this court against harassment by the police. There is also another case in connection with the assault made by the Sub Inspector. In the meantime, this case is falsely cooked up by the police against the petitioner, utilising the defacto complainant. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are involved in various other crimes and the investigation reveals that the duty nurse and the security of the hospital have given statement that the petitioners escaped from the hospital only at 9 p.m. on 27.5.2008 and returned to the hospital only on the next day on 28.5.2008 at 11 a.m. But, the incident in this case happened at 11 p.m. on 27.5.2008. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that Annexures A4 and A5 are issued from the Government hospital, which reveal that they were admitted on 21.5.2008 and treated as in patient up to 28.5.2008. If this is accepted, the petitioners were in the hospital when the incident occurred. There is no reason to reject Annexures A4 and A5 at this stage. There is also nothing to show that any report was made by the duty nurse regarding BA 3727/08 3 escape of the petitioners, before they were discharged from the hospital. If as a matter of fact petitioners had escaped from hospital on 27th at 9 p.m., a report would have been submitted by the duty nurse without delay. But, it is only at the time when they were questioned much later, during pendency of this petition that came with the version that the petitioners had escaped from the hospital. 7. Though the petitioners are involved in various other cases, on hearing both sides, I am satisfied that nothing should stand in the way of granting of anticipatory bail in this case, especially in the light of medical records . 8. In the result, the following order is passed: The petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate court within seven days from today and if any bail application is moved, the petitioner 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 Magistrate court concerned. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl