IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2545 of 2010()
1. SANTHOSH.T.T., AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. BIJU K.O., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O OUSEPH,
3. UMESH K.P., AGED 30 YEARS,
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :15/06/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
----------------------------------------------
Bail Application No.2545 of 2010
----------------------------------------------
Dated 15th June, 2010.
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323,
324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution,
petitioners (accused 1 to 3) committed trespass into the house of
defacto complainant and assaulted him using iron rod and stick,
after wrongfully restraining him. The mother of defacto
complainant was also assaulted, when she came to intervene.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
originally the offences under Sections 143 and 354 of the Indian
Penal Code were included, but later those sections were deleted.
It is also submitted that accused nos.4 to 6 in the F.I.R. were also
deleted. There is a case and counter and the offence under
Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code is deliberately included.
Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that charge
sheet is already laid. Petitioners were not available for
investigation.
BA NO.2545/10 2
5. On hearing both sides, I find no exceptional
circumstances to grant anticipatory bail. The mere existence of a
case and counter is not sufficient to invoke Section 438 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. Since charge sheet is laid, petitioner
may approach the trial court and seek regular bail.
This petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
tgs
