IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 295 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRMP.2800/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD .................... (CRIME NO.109/2008 OF AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- SURESH, S/O. GOPAL PRASAD, AGED 30 YEARS KATTUKULANGARA, AJANUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT & /STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 295 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324, 294 (b), 354 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner trespassed into a partly constructed house while de facto complainant was working there and he assaulted her using iron rod and inflicted injury on her. He also molested her and abused in filthy and abusive language. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that offence under Section 452 IPC will not be attracted since the building is not a dwelling house and he prays for anticipatory bail. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant was assaulted by petitioner, since she refused to go with him and he had also used iron rod for beating her. Offence under Section 354 IPC was also committed. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I am not inclined to invoke provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C to grant anticipatory bail. If petitioner has a case that offence under Section 452 IPC is not involved, he may raise same contentions in a petition, if any, filed under Section 437 Cr.P.C. Even if the argument is accepted and it is found that offence under Section 452 IPC is not involved, the offences involved in this case will be bailable BA.295/09 2 offences, in which event also, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. 6. The crime is registered as early as on 31.8.2008 and petitioner is required for recovery of weapon allegedly used for the offence. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since this Court has already ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, on appreciation of the facts and circumstances and hence, any order passed to the contrary a subsequent application for anticipatory bail may amount to review, which is not permissible in law. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.