IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7169 of 2008()
1. ABDUL HASSAN @ MAMMI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :25/11/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No. 7169 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of November,2008
O R D E R
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under sections 452, 323, 427,
506(ii) IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner was working as
a Manager in an establishment run by de facto complainant. He
was terminated from service, since he was a drunkard and he was
creating problems. Infuriated by the termination, petitioner
allegedly committed house trespass into the house of de facto
complainant and assaulted him. He also hit at the gate of de facto
complainant’s house using his car and caused damage. He also
damaged water pipe by using iron pipe and also criminally
intimidated de facto complainant.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that offence
under section 452 IPC will not be attracted, since petitioner
entered only into the veranda of the house and not inside the
house. It is submitted that petitioner and de facto complainant
are first cousins and de facto complainant owes some money to
petitioner. It is also submitted that no injury is caused to de facto
complainant and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that there is a clear case of house trespass. Petitioner
BA 7169/08 -2-
has made preparation to commit offences. He caused damage to
the articles in the house by using iron pipe. He used his car for
causing damage. He also assaulted de facto complainant and
others and they were injured. Petitioner is required for
interrogation for recovery of the materials objects.
5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of
allegations made and nature of investigation required, I do not
think it fit to grant anticipatory bail. I am not satisfied of any of
the grounds stated by petitioner to invoke the power under
section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner’s
interrogation is essential. Crime was registered as early as on
181-10-2007 and petitioner was not available for investigation.
Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender
before the Investigating Officer without any delay
and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he
surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and
proceed in accordance with law.
With this direction, this petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.