High Court Kerala High Court

Aneesh.D.R. Sheeja Bhavan vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 17 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Aneesh.D.R. Sheeja Bhavan vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 17 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5417 of 2008()


1. ANEESH.D.R. SHEEJA BHAVAN, ARAMTHANAM,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. AJEESH KUMAR, MANNARU KONATHU VEEDU,
3. PRASANTH T.R., NEDUMPURATH  VEEDU,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJU.S.A

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :17/09/2008

 O R D E R
                               K.HEMA, J.
                     ------------------------------
                        B.A. No.5417 OF 2008
                     ------------------------------
             Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008


                               O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148,

149, 452, 427, 323, 324, 379 of I.P.C. According to the

prosecution, the petitioners along with others trespassed into the

office of a cashew company, in which the defacto complainant is an

employee, assaulted him, committed mischief in the building and

also committed theft of a mobile phone.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a lorry

was being taken into the cashew company, while it hit against an

electric post, the line was damaged thereby and there was lack of

light in locality and people of the locality were agitated and some

incident happened. But things have not transpired as alleged.

Though mobile phone is allegedly lost, offence under Section 379 of

I.P.C. was included only as per a report dated 01.08.2008, after

about 5 days of the incident. Such an allegation was not there in

the First Information Statement, it is submitted. The only non

bailable offence is under Section 452 of I.P.C. But in the

circumstances in which the incident happened, it cannot be said

B.A.5417 of 2008
2

that the allegations would constitute offence under Section 452 of

I.P.C., it is submitted.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners

trespassed into the building and committed mischief in the cashew

company. But it is true that the allegation of offence under Section

379 of I.P.C. was brought in only after 5 days of the incident.

However, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail on

conditions.

Hence, the following order is passed:

The petitioners shall surrender before the

Investigating Officer within 7 days from today and

in the event of their arrest, if any, they will be

released on bail on their executing bond for

25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for

like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer

on condition that they will co-operate with the

investigation and report before the Investigating

Officer as and when directed.

The petition is allowed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
pac