IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3914 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.334/08 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------- 1. DILEEP KRISHNAN, S/O KRISHNAN, AGED 26, DILEEP NIVAS, KALLAN CHIRA, KANHANGAD, HOSDURG VILLAGE. 2. G.ANESHAN K., S/O GANAPATHY, KANIYAMKULAM HOUSE, KOVVAL PALLI, HOSDURG VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, TO BE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHO, HOSDURG POLICE STTION REP. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.3914 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioners, along with others, committed offences under Sections 323, 354 and 447 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The incident occurred on 1.6.2008 at about 8.30 PM. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that a suit was filed by the defacto complainant against the first petitioner, but it was dismissed. Therefore, a compound wall was constructed after one year of the dismissal of the suit. This was not liking of the defacto complainant. Therefore, defacto complainant and others destroyed the compound wall and caused loss to the first petitioners' father and on a complaint filed, a crime was registered as Crime No.333 of 2008 under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427 read with 149 of IPC against the defacto complainant and others. But as a counter blast to this, the defacto complainant gave a complaint before the police, alleging offences under Sections 323, 354 and 447 read with 34 IPC and thereafter, offence under Section BA.3914/08 2 452 is deliberately included to see that the petitioners are refused bail. It is also submitted that as per the First Information Statement, there is no house trespass. The incident happened in the compound only. 3. This petition is formally opposed. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the following order is passed on the following terms and conditions: The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within one week from today and in case of arrest, if any, the petitioners shall be released on bail on 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 condition that they will appear before the investigating officer as and when directed and co- operate with the investigation. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.