IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 130 of 2009 ----------------------------- CR.1019/2008 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION PETITIONR/ACCUSED NO.1:- ------------------------------------------------- SAJID @ SAJU, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.AHAMMED KUNHI, SERANG HOUSE, PALLAM ROAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CR.NO.1019/2008 OF KSARAGOD POLICE STATION) BY P.P. SRI. SRI. C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 130 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 15th day of January,2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 452, 341, 323, 506(ii) read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner along with other accused in furtherance of common intention trespassed into the jewellery shop of de facto complainant and requested for money. Since de facto complainant refused, he was assaulted and mischief was committed and loss to the tune of Rs.2,500/- was sustained. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that allegations made against petitioner are not correct. Petitioner has not committed any house trespass, as alleged. He had gone to the jewellery shop for selling gold ornaments and there was some altercation between de facto complainant and petitioner regarding the value offered for the ornaments and de facto complainant threw the gold ornaments on the face of petitioner. No occurrence as alleged has taken place and petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that nature of BA 130/09 -2- offence is serious and hence, anticipatory bail may not be granted. 5. On hearing both sides, it is clear that no weapon was used and from the allegations made it is not clear as to how a preparation was made to commit any offence, while allegedly trespass into the jewellery shop. Petitioner has an arguable case whether offence under section 452 or 448 IPC will be attracted in this case. This can be done only at the time of evidence. If petitioner is remanded, he will be put to irreparable injury and loss. Hence, I find that bail can be granted to him and hence, the following order is passed:- (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned and he shall be released on bail, on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:- i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer within three days from date of release on bail and co- operate with the investigation and BA 130/09 -3- make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when directed. ii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence any witness or commit any offence while on bail. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.