IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7181 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.348/2008 OF KURATHIKADU POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- ---------------------------------------- SHANU, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUMON, VALIYAPARAMBIL THUNDI, CHERUKUNNAM MURI, THEKKEKAARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA BY ADV. SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURATHIKKADU. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7181 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 452, 324 and 427 IPC. According to prosecution, there was a dispute between de facto complainant and petitioner in connection with a money transaction. Petitioner committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant and assaulted her by using iron rod. She sustained injury on the ear. Rs.3,000/- was also lost. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant had borrowed gold chain of petitioner's wife, when she was in need of money, but it was not returned and hence, there was a dispute between them. Petitioner was insisting to give back the gold ornament but it was not done. Therefore, with a view to wriggle out the liability to return the gold ornament, a false case is foisted against petitioner. No incident happened, as alleged and petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there was a definite motive for commission of BA 7181/08 -2- the offence. Petitioner was offended because of the failure on the part of de facto complainant to return the gold ornament. He had committed house trespass and also used an iron rod to assault de facto complainant. De facto complainant's case is that she had returned the money but, according to petitioner, that is not true. Petitioner used iron rod. In a case of this nature, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor that petitioner is required for interrogation. Considering the nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer and co- operate with the investigation, without any delay. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.