IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6352 of 2008()
1. SASIKUMAR,S/O.GOVINDAN
... Petitioner
2. RAMESHAN,S/O. CHANDRAN
3. CHANDRAN, S/O.VELU,
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :06/11/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No. 6352 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of November,2008
O R D E R
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under sections 452, 427, 506
(i), 294(b), 298 read with section 34 IPC. Petitioners (A1 to A3) in
furtherance of common intention committed house trespass into
the house of de facto complainant and committed mischief in the
house, criminally intimidated her and also abused her in filthy
language, since she gave shelter to 1st accused’s wife. De facto
complainant is the aunt of 1st accused’s wife.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no
incident, as alleged, has taken place. In fact, de facto
complainant and few others trespassed into the house of 1st
accused on 13-9-2008 at 5 p.m. and they took away 1st accused’s
children who were in his custody. The 1st accused was also
assaulted as evidenced by Annexure-B and complaint was
lodged, but police did not register a crime and hence a private
complaint was filed before the Magistrate Court on 30-9-2008,
copy is produced as Annexure-A. On the very next day, a
complaint was filed by de facto complainant alleging the present
allegations and the crime was registered against petitioners, it is
submitted.
BA 6352/08 -2-
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that considering the nature of allegations, it is not a fit
case to grant anticipatory bail. The scene mahazar would show
that some damages were caused to the articles in the house of de
facto complainant. (Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
this had happened in the house of the 1st accused also)
5. On hearing both sides, it appears from the submissions
made that two incidents happened, one at 5 p.m. and another at
6.30 p.m. on the same day and parties were taking law into their
hands. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to petitioners. Petitioners have not shown any
special circumstances for this Court to invoke section 438 Cr.P.C.
The relief under section 438 Cr.P.C. is not expected to be
extended in every case where there is apprehension of arrest on
accusation of commission of non-bailable offence. The court has
to distinguish between right and wrong and exercise discretion
only in fit cases, anticipatory bail can be granted. Incident
occurred as early as on 13-9-2008 and petitioners were not
available for investigation.
Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender
before the Magistrate court concerned or before
BA 6352/08 -3-
the Investigating Officer without any further delay
and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they
surrender before the police or not, police is at
liberty to arrest petitioners at any time.
With this direction, this petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.