IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6932 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.424/2008 OF BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER ------------------------------ SASIKUMAR, S/O.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI THEKKE BHAGATHU VEEDU, VENGANNOOR STREET, PALLICHAL P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No.6932 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 332, 427 read with section 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner along with another, in furtherance of common intention, used criminal force against de facto complainant, who is a meter reader in the Kerala Water Authority and manhandled him while he was discharging his official duties. The bills were torn off by them. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant used to visit various houses when men-folk were not available in the house and he showed peculiar interest to speak to women in the house and this conduct raised unpleasantness in the locality. His conduct was found to be not very healthy and hence, the people of the locality was resenting the meter reader's visit in various houses under the guise of meter reading. While so, on the date of occurrence, the de facto complainant went to the house of one Bhagavathy Amma and called her daughter and started talking to her [B.A.No.6932/08] 2 stating that the bills were not paid etc. The daughter came out and shown the bills of remittance of water charges. While so, the local people went there and there was a quarrel. Petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made and he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant was pushed down from the motor bike. He was also assaulted with hand and his mobile was taken out and thrown out. The bills were also torn off. In the nature of the allegations made, it may not be fit to grant anticipatory bail. He may be directed to appear before the investigating officer, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the first information statement, there is absolutely no reason is stated therein as to why petitioner and alleged assailants were motivated against the de facto complainant. And acted in the manner alleged. No reason is stated for commission of offence. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, I think it is only fit to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation. 2) Thereafter, in he event of his arrest, if any, he shall be produced before the Magistrate court concerned on the [B.A.No.6932/08] 3 same day, in accordance with law.3). On production of the petitioner before the learned Magistrate, if any bail application is filed, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed. ii) petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.