IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5566 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.317/2008 OF SOORANAD POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------------- 1. VISWANATHAN PILLAI AGED 37 YEARS, KOCHUTHUNDIL VEETIL, INJAKATHUMURI, SHURANDU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. VASUDEVAN PILLAI, AGED 67 YEARS, KOCHUTHUNDIL VEETIL, INJAKADU MURI, SOORANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.SYAM J SAM SMT.VIDYA MANUVILSAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OFKERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, SOORANADU, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 5566 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 447, 323, 324, 326, 427 read with 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners, who are father and son, trespassed into the property of de facto complainant and assaulted her and her tooth was broken. Mischief was also committed. On the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant, a crime was registered. The incident occurred on 13.7.2008 at 2 p.m. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations are false. In fact, a suit was filed by 2nd accused as O.S. 184 of 2005 and an injunction order was obtained against de facto complainant and her family members. Copy of the plaint is Annexure A4. The suit is listed for trial. On knowing that there is no chance for winning the case, de facto complainant and family members approached petitioners for withdrawing the [B.A.No.5566/08] 2 suit and to provide a way through the property. Since the demand was illegal, they were not amenable for the same. Hence, de facto complainant, her son and others trespassed into the house of first accused and assaulted first accused and they sustained injuries. The incident occurred on 13.7.2008 at 2 p.m. A crime was registered on the basis of a statement given by the first accused against de facto complainant and others. This case is only as a counter-blast. The first accused has sustained injuries in the incident, it is submitted. 4. It is also submitted that de facto complainant has no consistent case regarding the assault. In the first information statement, she stated that first accused beat her with stick and tooth was broken, whereas in the statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she stated that it was 2nd accused who had beaten her with a stick, consequent to which, tooth was broken. There is a major contradiction on this aspect. The allegations made are all false. In such circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. Petitioners are prepared to co-operate with the investigation, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, on considering the above facts, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners on [B.A.No.5566/08] 3 conditions: Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. 2) Petitioners shall, in the event of their arrest, 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 arresting officer on the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed. ii) Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.