IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 198 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.885/2007 OF PANANGADU POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS ---------------------------- 1. T.M.WILSON, AGED 22, S/O.MICHEAL, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, MADAVANA, PANANGAD. 2. JITHIN N.K., AGED 25, S/O.N.C.KUNJAN, NIKARTHIL HOUSE, MADAVANA, PANANGAD. 3. SHIJU M.T., AGED 27, S/O.THANKAPPAN M.A, MATTATHIL HOUSE, MADAVANA, PANANGAD. 4. ANIL T.D., AGED 23, S/O.DHAMODHARAN, THITTAYIL VEEDU, PANANGADU P.O., MADAVANA. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, (CRIME 885/07), PANANGADU POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.198 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners 1 to 3 are accused 1 to 3 in a crime registered for offences punishable interalia under Section 452 I.P.C. That is the only non-bailable offence alleged. In the F.I.R, accused 1 to 3 along with two others are shown as accused. The fourth petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused so far. The fourth petitioner apprehends arrest. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the fourth petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused so far and in these circumstances, his application for anticipatory bail can be dismissed. The fourth petitioner is not required to be arrested now and shall not be arrested. If his arrest is later required in the crime, he shall be given prior notice and prior permission of this court shall be taken, it is submitted. In these circumstances, accepting the submission/undertaking of the learned Public Prosecutor, the application for anticipatory bail of the fourth petitioner can be dismissed. So far as accused 1 to 3 are concerned, the allegation against them is that on account of prior animosity, they had trespassed into the residential building of the de facto complainant and had indulged in acts of violence B.A.No.198/08 2 against the de facto complainant, who suffered injuries also when he was beaten with iron rods, iron pipes etc. The incident took place on 17/12/2007. The de facto complainant ran to the neighbouring house and took shelter. Police was informed by such neighbour. It is then that the police came to the scene and took the victim to the hospital. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners 1 to 3 apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are totally false. In fact, accused 1 to 3 had gone to the house of the de facto complainant for the purpose of attempting settlement of the disputes with the de facto complainant. When the settlement did not work out, there was a verbal and physical conflict. In that incident, injuries were suffered by the victim/ de facto complainant. In any view of the matter, there is no merit in the allegation that offence under Section 452 I.P.C has been committed by petitioners 1 to 3. They may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. No counter case has admittedly been registered. No counter allegations have been raised before the police. The petitioners are not shown to have suffered any injuries. At any rate, they have admittedly not taken medical aid/consultation B.A.No.198/08 3 after so suffering injuries, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition raised by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am in agreement with the learned Public Prosecutor that this is a fit case where petitioners/accused 1 to 3 must surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. I have no reason at the moment to assume that the entry of the petitioners into the house of the de facto complainant did not amount to house trespass or to assume that they were present in the house of the de facto complainant at the instance of the de facto complainant to attempt a settlement of the outstanding disputes. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if petitioners 1 to 3 surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and apply for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.198/08 4 B.A.No.198/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007