IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1971 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.146/2010 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE DIST.) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. BAIJU, S/O. BALAN, VADAKKENELLIPUNATHIL HOUSE,MANDANKAVU, NADUVANNUR. 2. VIPIN DAS, S/O. CHANDRAN, NHERAKUNIYIL HOUSE, MANDANKAVU,NADUVNNUR. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALUSSERY POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 1971 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 01.03.2010 at about 1 A.M., petitioners criminally trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and outraged her molesty. Both accused ran away from the scene. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that first accused had borrowed some amount from the de facto complainant's husband and the second petitioner was a guarantor to the transaction. The entire money was paid back. But he demanded Rs. 10,000/- more from him. Since he was not prepared to pay such amount, second petitioner's mobile phone was snatched away by the de facto complainant's husband. But, on the very next day, a false complaint is filed against the petitioners. Aquarium was also broken by petitioners, while they were running away from the place. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as against first accused, charge sheet is laid B.A. No. 1971 of 2010 2 alleging offences under Sections 452 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that the incident has allegedly taken place in the house where de facto complainant is residing with husband and other family members and it is highly unlikely at 1 A.M. Petitioners were trespassed into the house of de facto complainant having an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides and on going through the Case Diary that the de facto complainant's case is that both of the accused trespassed into her bed room and caught hold to at 1. A.M. and when she created a hue and cry and when husband wake up and neighbours also came, petitioners ran away. Mobile phone of the second accused was found in the house. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that on investigation, it is revealed that the second accused was not involved in the offence and his name was deleted. But at the same time, defacto complainant's case is that mobile phone was found in the house. I am satisfied that petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail on conditions. B.A. No. 1971 of 2010 3 7. Hence the following order is passed. i) Since second petitioner is not an accused in this case, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected, since there cannot be any apprehension of arrest. ii) First petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court on the condition that first petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln