IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3833 of 2010()
1. SYED, S/O. POOKKARATH KUNHAMMED VAIDYAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :13/07/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
----------------------------------------------
Bail Application No.3833 of 2010
----------------------------------------------
Dated 13th July, 2010.
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147,
148, 323, 354, 427 and 452 read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner (A2) along with
few others, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and
armed with sticks, committed house trespass into the house of
defacto complainant and assaulted defacto complainant and his
wife. He also outraged the modesty of defacto complainant’s
wife, damaged the window glass and the door and thereby
committed the various offences.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
defacto complainant is on inimical terms with the petitioner.
Petitioner had purchased 1 acre 70 cents of property and out of
this, petitioner assigned a portion of the property to defacto
complainant’s brother and sister. This was not to the liking of
defacto complainant. Therefore, he caused his mother to file a
partition suit and in the plaint schedule property, he included
BA NO. 3833/10 2
petitioner’s property also. This complaint is also lodged for
harassing the petitioner, without any reason. No serious injury is
sustained by any person. It is also submitted that the house in
which defacto complainant is residing was rented out by
petitioner to defacto complainant’s mother and hence, offence
under Section 452 will not be attracted in this case, it is
submitted.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
defacto complainant, his wife, children and mother are residing in
the house in which petitioner and others committed house
trespass. Sticks were used for the commission of the offences
and they are not yet recovered. Learned Public Prosecutor
however, conceded that there are no serious injury on the defacto
complainant.
5. On hearing both sides, I find that the only non-
bailable offence in this case is under Section 452 of the Indian
Penal Code. Though various submissions are made by learned
counsel, there is nothing to indicate or probabilise that such
offence is not attracted in this case or that petitioner has not
committed such offence. In the above circumstances, I do not
BA NO. 3833/10 3
think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is
bound to surrender without any delay and co-operate with the
investigation.
6. No further application for anticipatory bail by the
petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
tgs