IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6857 of 2008()
1. SREEJITH, 24 YEARS, S/O.PADMAKARAN
... Petitioner
2. SARATH, 24 YEARS, S/O.SANTHAKUMAR
3. RENJITH, 26 YEARS,
4. RAJITH, 24 YEARS, S/O.PADMAKARAN
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :25/11/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.No.6857 of 2008
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th November, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 294(b),
323 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution,
petitioners, accused nos.1 to 4, in furtherance of common
intention, trespassed into the house of defacto complainant with
preparation to commit offences, abused the defacto complainant
and family members in filthy language, committed mischief and
also assaulted them.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that
petitioners and the family members of the defacto complainant
are close relatives. They are on enmical terms for the past many
years. The third accused’s marriage was fixed to 23.11.2008 and
hence, only with a view to create problems to the family
members, a false case has been foisted against petitioners, it is
submitted. It is also pointed out that the alleged date of
occurrence is 28.9.2008 but, the FIR was registered only on
3.10.2008 and there is a delay in lodging the FIR. It is also
submitted that offence under Section 452 IPC (which is the only
BA No. 6857/2008 2
non bailable offence) is not attracted in this case, since evidence
is lacking regarding preparation to commit offence. For the
offence under Section 452 IPC, preparation is to be established
and decision reported in Dal Chand vs. State (1966 Crl.LJ
236) was cited in support of his contentions.
4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that three
persons were injured, though there are only minor injuries. The
delay is not seen explained in the FIR. This may be due to the
reason that they were in the hospital, it is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner has an
arguable case in respect of offence under Section 452 IPC.
Hence, for the purpose of bail, offence under Section 452 IPC
shall be treated as one under Section 448 IPC. If the petitioners
surrender before the police or the Magistrate Court, the offences
included will be treated as Section 448 IPC instead of Section
452 IPC. However, considering the nature of allegations made, I
am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners.
With this observation, petition is disposed of.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl