IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4565 of 2010() ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2010 IN CRMP.5469/2010 IN MC.93/2008 of J.M.F.C.,CHAVAKKAD CRIME NO. 425/2010 0F GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ---------------------------- MOHAMMED SHAHEER, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.POKKURU, PULICHARAMVEETIL HOUSE, RESIDING AT BINCY BUILDING, KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD-1. BY ADV. SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SHO, GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 4565 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 17.07.2010 at about 5.25 P.M., petitioner trespassed into the de facto complainant's house and wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him by using a reaper. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has not actually trespassed into the house as alleged. De facto complainant's mother had obtained an order against de facto complainant from the Magistrate Court as Annexure-I, by which she is permitted to reside in the house where the incident occurred and the de facto complainant was prohibited from disturbing the residence of de facto complainant's mother in the house. After obtaining the order, de facto complainant's mother found that the house was locked and hence, she returned. Later, with police protection, she along with her counsel and petitioner, who is a B.A. No. 4565 / 2010 2 neighbour came to the house. Petitioner is aged about 25 years and he is an engineer and he went to the house only for helping the de facto complainant's mother. 4. According to petitioner, on reaching the house, the de facto complainant and some persons were found in the house, de facto complainant's mother's entry was not to the liking of the de facto complainant and therefore, de facto complainant's mother was assaulted by the de facto complainant and she was attempted to be locked up in the room. The petitioner went to her rescue while he was assaulted by de facto complainant and he sustained serious injuries. He had a “ closed head injury” and rupture of right eyelid etc. He went to the hospital on the same day and he made an allegation of assault to the doctor. He was referred to another hospital for better management and Annexures II and III will revealed these facts. 5. Petitioner would also contend that in respect of the same incident, the police did not register any case though petitioner had made allegations of assault to the doctor. Hence, petitioner filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police. The de facto B.A. No. 4565 / 2010 3 complainant's mother also filed a petition before the Minister and Superintendent of Police etc. about the incident and the copy is Annexure-IV. In the light of what transpired in the house, she also moved Magistrate Court for obtaining an order, since, in spite of the Annexure-I order directing de facto complainant not to disturb the residence of the de facto complainant's mother, herself and petitioner were attacked by de facto complainant with a view to cause obstruction to her residence in the house. 6. On 19.07.2010, an order was passed by learned Magistrate as per which the de facto complainant and his men were restrained from residing in the house. Key of house and all the rooms were ordered to be handed over to de facto complainant's mother. The Circle Inspector was also directed to execute the order and filed a report on the very same day. The order dated 19.07.2010 is also produced. It is also submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the def acto complainant is working abroad and he was resisting his mother from residing in the property and hence she was forced to get an order from the Magistrate Court. De facto complainant has suppressed all these facts in the F.I. Statement and given a B.A. No. 4565 / 2010 4 distorted version. He has not actually sustained any serious injuries. Petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition and co- operate with the investigation. 7. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant had sustained some injury to the hand and he was hospitalised. As per the allegations in the F.I. Statement, petitioner had trespassed into the house and attacked the de facto complainant with a reaper. 8. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary and the documents produced in this case, I find that petitioner sustained serious injuries, as revealed from the medical records produced. A clear allegation was made to the doctor that petitioner sustained injuries in an assault. No crime was registered in respect of such assault. The prosecution has no explanation why no crime was registered. There is also no explanation how petitioner sustained serious injuries in the incident. 9. It also seen from the F.I. Statement given by the de facto complainant that he was proceeding to the airport to go to Dubai along with his wife while he got information from his lawyer that an B.A. No. 4565 / 2010 5 order was passed in favour of the mother. He therefore, gave up his trip and came back. According to him, his mother had abandoned him at the age of eight years and she joined a film director and she obtained divorce from his father. It is thus, clear that the relationship between the mother and son is strained. 10. At the same time, it appears that an order is passed by the Magistrate Court in favour of the mother allowing her to reside in the shared household, which indicates that the mother has some right of residence in the house. It is also to be noted that sons are prohibited from causing any disturbance to the mother. Annexure- IV will show that on the very next day of the incident, de facto complainant's mother sent a complaint stating the manner in which, petitioner was attacked at the house of the de facto complainant etc. On evaluation of all the materials before me, I find that it is only just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: 1. Petitioner shall, in the event of his arrest be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five B.A. No. 4565 / 2010 6 thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: i). Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. ii). Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with the evidence. 2). This order will be in force only for a period of 30 days from today. In the meantime, petitioner shall seek regular bail from the court concerned in accordance with law. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln