IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7770 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.536/08 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2 -------------------------------------------- SANOJ, VATTAVILA VEEDU, THANNIMMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON 5/01/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7770 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 323, 324, 506(1) and 354 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner (second accused), along with first accused, in furtherance of common intention committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant and assaulted her using iron rod and stick and criminally intimidated her and thereby committed various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant's brother-in-law's son owed some money to petitioner and he did not pay the same. Therefore, there was some altercation between the two and a false complaint is filed. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is true that there was some money transaction as alleged, but petitioner has assaulted de facto BA.7770/08 2 complainant, who is a lady, on the allegation that she was standing in the way of realisation of the amount. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Considering the nature of investigation also, petitioner may be required for interrogation and I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The incident was occurred as early as on 17.9.2008 and petitioner has not surrendered before the police or before the court. Therefore, investigation could not be proceeded with. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether petitioner surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.