High Court Kerala High Court

Lohitakshan vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Lohitakshan vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3766 of 2010()


1. LOHITAKSHAN, AGED 33 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :08/07/2010

 O R D E R
                              K. HEMA, J.
                       ---------------------------
                       B.A. No. 3766 of 2010
                   ------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010

                              O R D E R

Petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 354 and

326 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on

06.06.2010 at about 2.30 P.M., petitioner trespassed into the

kitchen of the house of the de facto complainant and pulled her

maxi and thereby outraged her modesty. When the husband of

the de facto complainant intervened he also assaulted him by

using iron rod and he sustained injury to the nasal bone.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the de

facto complainant’s husband owes some money to the petitioner

and there was some difference of opinion relating to this.

Therefore, a false case is lodged against petitioner. It is also

submitted that 452 of the Indian Penal Code will not be attracted

in this case.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that the nature of the allegations made against the

petitioner are serious. The de facto complainant’s husband

B.A. No. 3766 / 2010 2

sustained a fracture to the nasal bone and the petitioner used an

iron rod to inflict injury. He has also acted in an undesirable

manner to the de facto complainant.

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

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

grant anticipatory bail. The injury sustained by the de facto

complainant’s husband is also grievous in nature and hence I am

not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner.

6. The incident happened as early as on 06.06.2010.

Petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with the

investigation. Petitioner is at liberty to surrender either before

the investigating officer or before the Magistrate Court

concerned.

Petition is dismissed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE

ln