IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6703 of 2008()
1. NITHIN KUMAR.G,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :19/11/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J
==================
B.A.No. 6703 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008.
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148,
149, 427, 452, 308 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, the first
accused had misappropriated some amounts from the firm of
defacto complainant, while he was working as a Manager in the
establishment. Defacto complainant questioned first accused on
this. Infuriated by this, eleven gundas trespassed into the
establishment and assaulted defacto complainant using chair and
destroyed the articles there and a crime was registered on the
basis of a complaint made by the defacto complainant. Petitioner
is one of such persons.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner only interfered when there was some quarrel between
first accused and the defacto complainant. But, even according
to prosecution, petitioner was not guilty to any overt acts. It
cannot be said that he committed trespass, since he is an
employee in the firm and he is entitled to be present there, it is
B.A.No. 6703 of 2008 -2-
submitted. The first accused had filed a petition for anticipatory
bail as Bail Application No. 6600 of 2008 and this court made
observation to the effect that the offence committed in this case.
Case will be treated as offence under Sections 448 and 324
I.P.C., instead of Sections 308 and 452 of I.P.C. The same
observation may be made in this case also, it is submitted.
On hearing both sides, on going through the order referred
above, I am satisfied that there is no ground to grant
anticipatory bail. However, for the purpose of bail under Section
437 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the offences involved can be
treated as under Sections 448 and 324 of I.P.C instead of
Sections 452 and 308 I.P.C. It is made clear that this
observation is made only for the purpose of bail.
With this observation, petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
rhs