IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6621 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2884/2008 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM CRIME NO.627/08 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 ---------------------------------------------- 1. APPUNNI @ PRAJITH, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, CHANDRALAYAM, CHAVARA BRIDGE (P.O), CHAVARA VILLAGE. 2. LALU ALEX, AGED 27 YEARS, BIJU BHAVANAM, (P.N.R BHAVANAM), CHAVARA BRIDGE (P.O), CHAVARA VILLAGE. 3. VIMAL, AGED 25 YEARS, BIJU BHAVANAM, (P.N.R.BHAVANAM), CHAVARA BRIDGE (P.O), CHAVARA VILLAGE. 4. DHANEESH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.GOPINATHAN PILLAI, CHENNATHU HOUSE, CHAVARA BRIDGE (P.O), CHAVARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6621 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 354, 323, 294b, 506(ii) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners, who are accused 1 to 4, in furtherance of common intention, committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant and molested her, abused her, in obscene language and also assaulted her and criminally intimidated her. The incident occurred on 12.9.2008 at 5 p.m. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that on 15.9.2008, one Santhosh, who is a close relative of de facto complainant assaulted accused nos.2 and 4 and a crime was registered on the basis of a statement given in respect of the incident on 17.9.2008. With respect to the present crime also, the crime was registered on 17.9.2008 with half-an-hour gap. Allegations in the present crime are false and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that considering the nature of allegations, it is not fit to BA.6621/08 2 grant anticipatory bail. There is no case and counter-case involved in this case and mere delay in registration of the crime may not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find no ground to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. From all what learned counsel for petitioner submitted, I only find that in respect of the alleged incident which occurred on 12.9.2008 and 15.9.2008, FIR was registered only on 17.9.2008. In respect of both the incidents, there is delay in registration of crime. I do not understand how this delay can be treated as an exonerating circumstance and how a presumption of innocence of petitioner can be drawn from such circumstance. There is no ground to grant anticipatory bail. The crime was registered on 17.9.2009 and petitioners are required for interrogation and investigation. Petitioners are directed to surrender before investigating officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest petitioners and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.