High Court Kerala High Court

Anto vs State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Anto vs State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 4481 of 2008()


1. ANTO, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O THOMAS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. WILSON, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O THOMAS,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.RAJEEV

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :25/07/2008

 O R D E R
                                   K. HEMA, J.
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                              B.A.No. 4481 of 2008
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008

                                      O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under sections 452, 294B, 323, 354 and

427 read with section 34 IPC . According to the prosecution, petitioners

who are father and children trespassed into the house of the defacto-

complainant, abused him and his wife. 1st accused assaulted him, caused

damage to the articles and financial loss to him. The 3rd accused was

standing on the sitout of the house of the defacto-complainant and he

abused the defacto-complainant and his wife.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was an

altercation between the parties in connection with another incident. The 2nd

accused was constructing a house and he wanted construction materials to

be carried through the defacto-complainant’s property, to which, he was not

agreeable. Therefore, some wordy altercation occurred and motivated by

this, the present crime is registered on the basis of false allegations, it is

submitted.

BA 4481/2008 -2-

4. This application is opposed. It is pointed out by learned Public

Prosecutor that the Sessions Court considered the bail application filed by

the petitioners and 3rd accused and anticipatory bail was granted only to the

3rd accused.

5. On hearing both sides and on going through the order of the

learned Sessions Judge, I find that the learned Sessions Judge granted

anticipatory bail to accused No.3, taking into consideration the limited

nature of his involvement, but anticipatory bail was refused to the

petitioners. I do not find any reason to take a different view. Hence, I am

not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

The application is dismissed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

mn.