High Court Kerala High Court

Lalu vs The State Of Kerala on 31 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
Lalu vs The State Of Kerala on 31 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 279 of 2010()


1. LALU, AGED 26 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. KISHORE, AGED 28 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :31/05/2010

 O R D E R
                                 K.HEMA, J
                              --------------------
                  Bail Application No.279 Of 2010
                -------------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 31st day of May 2010

                                   ORDER

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 323, 324,

427, 294(b) and read with Section 34 of the IPC. According to

prosecution, petitioners (A1 and A2) in furtherance of their

common intention trespassed into the house of the de facto

complainant and assaulted her and her husband and also

destroyed articles in the house. First accused used a sword and

the de facto complainant and her husband sustained injuries.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no

incident as alleged had taken place. De facto complainant’s

husband was drunk on the date of occurrence and he was taken to

his house by the petitioners. On reaching house, de facto

complainant did not like it and she alleged that the petitioners

were responsible for making her husband drink. There was

altercation between the two and in the course of the incident, the

de facto complainant sustained some minor injuries. The parties

are relatives.

Bail Application No.279 Of 2010 2

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that the de facto complainant’s husband used to get

drunk and de facto complainant believed that the petitioners were

responsible for the same. This fact was brought to the notice of

the petitioners while they attacked de facto complainant’s

husband and pushed him down into a canal. After this incident,

again, they trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant

through the back door and inflicted injuries and committed

mischief etc.

5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of

the allegation made, nature of the injuries sustained and the

place where the incident happened, I am satisfied that this is not

a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The counter allegations made

by petitioners are not even probabalised.

Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

K.HEMA, JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE
vdv