IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7802 of 2008()
1. JAYAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :13/02/2009
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------------
Bail Appl. No. 7802 of 2008
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009.
ORDER
Petition for anticipatory bail.
The alleged offences are under sections 323, 354 and 506
(1) of IPC. De facto complainant is a teacher. Petitioner is her
husband’s friend. Petitioner wanted a loan to be raised for which
de facto complainant’s friend, who is also another teacher, stood
as surety to raise the loan. Thereafter de facto complainant
committed default. The teacher, who stood as surety,
approached de facto complainant and stated that she received
notice because of the default. The de facto complainant and her
husband told this fact to petitioner and wanted him to pay off
the loan. Infuriated by this, on 9.11.2008 at about 6.30 p.m. he
committed house trespass and criminally intimidated de facto
complainant’s husband and molested de facto complainant and
also assaulted her mother and three year old child. Learned
counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had arranged a
surety for the de facto complainant’s husband to raise a loan. He
[B.A,No.7802/08] 2
defaulted payment and hence the surety approached the
petitioner and informed about the same. To persuade de facto
complainant’s husband to pay off the loan, petitioner had gone to
the house of de facto complainant and when there was a scuffle
and petitioner also suffered injury, as evidenced by Annexue-II.
The other allegations are not correct.
3. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the story is the other way. It is the petitioner who
has defaulted the payment as per prosecution case. There is
nothing to support the case put forward by the accused. This is
not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
4. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions
made by learned Public Prosecutor. There is nothing to support
the case put forward by petitioner that the loan was defaulted by
de facto complainant’s husband etc. Considering the nature of
allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant
anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to co-operate with
investigation, since the crime is registered as early as on
10.11.2008. Hence, the following order is passed:
1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating
officer or Magistrate court concerned and co-
operate with the investigation. Whether he
[B.A,No.7802/08] 3
surrenders or not, the police is at liberty to arrest
him at any time and proceed in accordance with
law.
2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the
petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this
Court.
Petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Krs.