IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5301 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. 582/08 OF VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3 : ----------------- 1. MUSTHAFA.K.P.,S/O.MOIDEEN KAIPAYIL HOUSE, PUTHIYA PURAYIL CHERUPAZHASSI PO., VIA.KOLACHERI, KANNUR. 2. ABDUL SALAM, S/O.MAJEED, KAIPAYIL HOUSE DO.DO. 3. RASHEED.A.P., S/O.ABOOBACKER DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J.` ---------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No.5301 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, the petitioners trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant after making preparation to assault her and they called caste name of the de facto complainant and caught hold of her hair. They also poured kerosene in the food which was prepared. Thereby, they committed under Sections 452, 354, 277 read with Section 3(1) (XI) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners and de facto complainant are neighbours. On the previous day of the alleged occurrence, de facto complainant had assaulted the petitioners. Thinking that a complaint will be lodged against them, this complaint is falsely field by de facto complainant, it is submitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that offence under Section 3(1)(XI) of the S.C. and [B.A.5301/08] 2 S.T. Act will not be attracted since there is no outraging of modesty. 3. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the nature of the allegations made, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. 4. On hearing both sides, it is clear that, though the petitioners would allege that on the previous day an attack was made, there was only oral assertions but it is not supported by any materials. Even if it is accepted, it may be a reason to retaliate as well. I am unable to agree at this stage that offence under Section 3(1)(XI) of SC & ST (P.A.) Act is not made out. I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.