IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3880 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.409/10 OF NELASHWARAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------------------- RISHAD, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.MAJEED, HOSPITAL ROAD, THIKADAPURAM, NELASHWARAM VILLAGE, NELASHWARAM, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NELASHWARAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3880 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 13th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 323, 354 and 425 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 15.6.2010, at about 7.30 p.m., petitioner committed house trespass into the house of defacto complainant and caused hurt to defacto complainant and her husband. Petitioner also damaged window glasses by beating with iron rod. He also outraged the modesty of defacto complainant by assaulting her. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is aged 19 years. He is residing with his grandmother. His grandmother had entrusted a contract work with defacto complainant's husband and paid Rs.75,000/- for renovation of the house. In spite of lapse of the period fixed, the work was not completed, though repeated demands were made. Therefore, petitioner had gone to the house of defacto complainant to ask him to finish the work without any delay. No incident, as alleged had taken place. But, the defacto complainant's wife has lodged BA NO. 3880/10 2 a false complaint against petitioner. No injury is sustained in the incident. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that iron rod was used for commission of the offences and it is already recovered. But, as per the allegations made in the complaint, petitioner had assaulted defacto complainant and her husband and they sustained injuries and they were hospitalised. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for petitioner was not able to probabilise that no house-trespass occurred, as alleged. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs