High Court Kerala High Court

Anil vs State Of Kerala on 23 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Anil vs State Of Kerala on 23 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2758 of 2010()


1. ANIL, AGED 37, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANILKUMAR K.N.PILLAI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :23/06/2010

 O R D E R
                                 K.HEMA, J
                            -----------------------
                        B.A No.2758 OF 2010
                        --------------------------------
                Dated this the 23rd day of June 2010

                                   ORDER

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b), 324 and

452 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 24/03/2010, at about

5:30 p.m, petitioner trespassed into the house of de facto

complainant with a stone and uttered obscene words and hit

de facto complainant with the stone and inflicted injuries on him.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that while

petitioner was walking along the road, de facto complainant’s son,

an Excise Guard, came on the way and there was a quarrel

between them. A stone was thrown and it hit against de facto

complainant. But, no incident happened inside the house.

Offence under Section 452 is not committed and that is the only

non-bailable offence alleged in this case.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner has

appeared before the Investigating Officer, as directed by this

court and he was interrogated. He reported no objection in

granting anticipatory bail to petitioner.

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

the allegations made, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant

B.A No.2758 OF 2010 2

anticipatory bail. But, I am satisfied that petitioner has definite

defence regarding involvement of Section 452 of IPC and it can be

established only during trial. If anticipatory bail is refused it is

likely that it will result in miscarriage of justice. In such

circumstances, I pass the following order.

(1) Prayer for anticipatory bail by petitioner is

rejected.

(2) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating

Officer concerned within seven days from today.

(3) On such surrender, if the petitioner is arrested,

offence under Section 452 of IPC will be treated

as not included for the purpose of bail.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

K.HEMA
JUDGE

vdv