Rahul vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 19 June, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3869 of 2008()


1. RAHUL, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SMT.C.S.SHEEJA

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :19/06/2008

 O R D E R
                                     K. HEMA, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                               B.A.No. 3869 of 2008
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008

                                        O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail.

2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner trespassed into a

toddy shop and destroyed some bottles of toddy and caused damages. He

also slapped one of the employees and thereby committed offences under

sections 452, 427, 323 and 506(ii) IPC. According to the prosecution, the

motive is that the defacto-complainant had a quarrel with the petitioner’s

uncle and wreck vengeance the petitioner has acted in the manner as

alleged. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that offence under

section 452 is only a non-bailable offence, but it will not be attracted on the

facts of this nature. The petitioner was using only his hands to slap the

employee, which shows that he had not any preparation to commit the

offence. It is also submitted the petitioner was having iron rod in his hand

and in spite of that he did not use the same and therefore offence under

section 452 is not attracted on the facts and circumstances of this case. It is

also submitted that the petitioner is aged only 19 years.

BA 3869/08 -2-

3. The application is opposed. The learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that considering the nature of offence, this is not a fit case to

grant anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that the iron rod which was used

for the offence is to be recovered.

4. On hearing both sides, it is clear that there was a motive for the

petitioner to commit the offence and he had gone to the shop with iron rod

and committed mischief, etc. As submitted by the learned Public

Prosecutor, it cannot be said that an offence under section 452 is not

attracted merely because the petitioner slap the defacto-complainant. I am

satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

The application is dismissed.

K. HEMA,
JUDGE.

mn.