High Court Kerala High Court

Ramachandran.M vs State-Represented By Public … on 23 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Ramachandran.M vs State-Represented By Public … on 23 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3734 of 2008()


1. RAMACHANDRAN.M , AGED 46 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :23/06/2008

 O R D E R
                              K.HEMA, J.

                  -----------------------------------------
                         B.A.No. 3734 of 2008
                  -----------------------------------------

              Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008

                               O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. According to prosecution, petitioner trespassed into the

property of the defacto complainant and pulled down the compound

wall and when the defacto complainant questioned the same, he

was abused her, calling the caste name and insulted and threatened

to kill her and therefore First Information Statement was given and

a case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 447,

427, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was an

order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate to cut a tree which

was standing in the property of the defacto complainant in a

dangerous condition, but the defacto complainant did not comply

with the same. The matter was taken up before the police and it

was compromised and in spite of that, the defacto complainant

refused to comply with the order of the learned Sub Divisional

BA.3734/08 2

Magistrate. The defacto complainant has given a false complaint

only to avoid compliance of the order passed by the learned Sub

Divisional Magistrate, it is submitted.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that a knife is used by the petitioner and it is to be

recovered.

5. On hearing both sides, I find that the petitioner is required

for the recovery of weapons and for custodial interrogation.

Hence, this petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE

vgs.