IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5273 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.413/08 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------- P.K.ASHRAF, S/O KUNHI MOHAMMED, 40 YEARS POOKODAN VYTHIRI, PAZHAYA VYTIRI WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5273 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, the petitioner allegedly trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant under the pretext that it was to enquire about sale of a property and he wanted the number of her husband. When the de facto complainant went into the house, he caught hold of her and modested her. A crime was registered under Sections 452 and 354 of Indian Penal Code on the statement given by the de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the alleged incident took place on 31.7.2008, but the complaint is lodged on 7.8.2008. In fact the petitioner had gone to the house of the de facto complainant, but it was to ask her to return the money which her husband had taken from him for arranging a visa. When he went there, she called her brother- in-law and both of them together threatened him not to come to the house asking for money again and that the petitioner BA.5273/08 2 will face consequences. He came back and made a complaint to the Vythiri Police regarding the incident and he made a request for getting back the money. The said complainant was registered as a petition. But, thereafter, on knowing that the petitioner had made a complaint, on 7.8.2008 a false complaint is made against the petitioner, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the delay in lodging complaint against the petitioner was caused because the de facto complainant wanted to consult her husband. The petitioner had gone there under some pretext and committed the offence. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner and the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions: BA.5273/08 3 i) Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation. ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. Iii) Petitioner shall not intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.