IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3331 of 2008()
1. SREEKUMAR,
... Petitioner
2. PRADEEP,
3. SASI,
4. SASI P.K.,
5. P.R.VISWANATHAN,MALAYANIYIL HOUSE,
6. C.K.JAYAN,CHENNOTHU HOUSE,ERUMELI.
7. R.V.SHARMA,RAMYA BHAVAN,
8. RATYHEESH KUMAR,PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE,
9. K.B.MANOJ,
10. M.S.KARUNAKARAN,MATTATHIL MAKKAL VEEDU,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :27/05/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 3331 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008
O R D E R
According to the prosecution, petitioners 1 to 9 committed criminal
trespass into the house of the defacto-complainant, manhandled her and
caused damage to the widow of her house by beating with iron rode, pulled
her down, outraged modesty and snatched away a gold chain from her neck.
The incident happened on 7-5-2008 and the F.I.R. was registered on the
next day. A crime is registered against petitioners 1 to 9 under sections 143,
144, 147, 149, 452, 323, 354, 427, 379 read with section 148 IPC.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that the 10th
petitioner is not involved in the offence and he is not required for the
purpose of the case. The police is not intended to arrest him. The above
submission is recorded.
3. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that weapons
have not been recovered so far and so also the alleged stolen gold
ornaments. Therefore, custodial interrogation of petitioners 1 to 9 are
required and hence their request is opposed. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that this is a falsely foisted case. Annexure-V F.I.R
was registered on a complaint made by the 1st petitioner against the defacto-
BA 3331/08 -2-
complainant and her husband alleging offences under sections 457, 427,
380 read with section 34 IPC for having committed offences on the same
day at the same place. It is also pointed out that the property does not
belong to the defacto-complainant as evidenced by the sale deed,
Annexure-II. Sales-tax was also paid and ownership certificate also issued
to the 1st petitioner as evidenced by Annexures III and IV. Therefore, the
allegation of trespass will not stand, it is submitted. The learned counsel
for the petitioners also argued that the mischief is actually committed to
the property belonging to the petitioner by the defacto-complainant and
others.
4. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that there is an assertion of
right over the same property by both sides the accused and the defacto-
complainant. There is a civil dispute and two criminal cases have arisen as
an offshoot. The petitioners’ custodial interrogation is required for the
purpose of recovery of the alleged stolen article. In the circumstances, I
find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the
application is dismissed.
K. HEMA,
JUDGE.
mn.
BA 3331/08 -3-