IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2493 of 2010()
1. PRAMOD, S/O. MAYANDI @ APPUNNI,
... Petitioner
2. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. MAYANDI@ APPUNNI,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTEDE BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :23/04/2010
O R D E R
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J.
---------------------------------------------
Bail Application No.2493 of 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2010
O R D E R
This is an anticipatory bail application filed by accused 1 and
2 in Crime No.147/2010 of Kuttippuram Police Station,
Malappuram District under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that on April 12,
2010 at about 8 a.m. the accused trespassed into the house of
the defacto complainant and manhandled and beat her and
thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 323,
506(2) r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. It is alleged in the petition that on the same day at
about 10.40 a.m. the uncle of the defacto complainant in this
case trespassed into the house of the petitioners and attacked
the first petitioner and his mother for which Crime No.163/2010
was registered by the Kalpakamchery Police Station, that to
escape from that case, the present case has been foisted against
the petitioners and that the petitioners apprehend arrest and
harassment by police and therefore anticipatory bail may be
BA No. 2493 of 2010
-:2:-
granted to the petitioners.
4. Notice given to the Public Prosecutor. Heard counsel for
the petitioners and Public Prosecutor.
5. For the following reasons I am inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The defacto complainant is a
relative of the first petitioner. This is essentially a family dispute.
Further it is alleged that in another incident on the same day the
uncle of defacto complainant attacked the first petitioner and
caused injuries to him. For which Crime No.163/2010 was
registered by the Kalpakamchery Police Station. The copy of the
FIR in that case was produced. Taking into consideration the
circumstances of the case and the facts that the petitioner and
defacto complainant are relatives, I feel that the apprehension of
the petitioners that they will be arrested and harassed at the
hands of the police appears to be true. Therefore I feel that this
is a fit case in which anticipatory bail can be granted to the
petitioners.
In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent is
directed to release the petitioners on bail, if arrested, on
BA No. 2493 of 2010
-:3:-
executing a bond for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand
only)each with two solvent sureties for like sum each. If
arrested and released on bail, the petitioners shall co-operate
with the investigation and shall appear before the investigating
officer as and when ordered.
P.Q. BARKATH ALI,
Judge
ttb