IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7940 of 2008()
1. SAJEEV, AGED 36 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. DILEEP, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 35 YEARS
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI. K.SIJU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :04/02/2009
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.7940 OF 2008
--------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 341, 323,
324 and 34 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioners
(accused nos.1 and 2) in furtherance of common intention
committed house trespass into a hospital and wrongfully
restrained the defacto complainant and also assaulted him
using glass piece and stone and committed the offences.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that offence
under Section 452 I.P.C. will not be attracted, since defacto
complainant has nothing to do with the possession of the
hospital, where the incident happened. The hospital
authorities have not made any complaint and defacto
complainant has no connection with the hospital. The only non
bailable offence alleged is under Section 452 I.P.C. and hence,
anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the defacto complainant was attacked from the
B.A.No.7940 of 2008
2
courtyard of the hospital first and when he ran, to escape from
petitioners’ clutches, they chased him. The defacto
complainant entered room No.101 in the hospital and closed it
for rescuing himself, but petitioners broke open the room by
force, and again assaulted him by using glass piece and stone.
The matter is being investigated into and whether the hospital
authorities are aggrieved or not is yet to be found out.
Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence under
Section 452 I.P.C. is attracted etc.
On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of
allegations made and also taking into account the nature of the
place where the offence was committed, I do not find that this
is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. At this stage of
investigation, it cannot be said that whether offence under
Section 452 I.P.C. is attracted or not, without ascertaining
whether the hospital authorities have any grievance against
the offence committed. The crime is registered as early as on
13.12.2008 and petitioners are required for investigation.
Hence, the following order is passed :
B.A.No.7940 of 2008
3
Petitioners shall surrender before the
investigating officer or before the Magistrate
court concerned and co-operate with the
investigation. Whether they surrender or not,
police is at liberty to arrest them and
proceed in accordance with law.
The petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
pac