JOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 92 of 2009 of Eravipuram Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 294 (b), 354, 427 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner and the third petitioner is his mother in law. The aforesaid crime was registered based on a statement furnished by one Nisa alleging commission of non bailable offences. The petitioners and the de facto complainant are neighbours. On 29. 3. 2009 at about 9 a. m. the de facto complainant had seen the petitioners cutting and removing branches of an Anjily tree standing in their property. Soon she went to her father's shop. On her return, according to her, she was abused. During the process of cutting and removing the branches of the said tree it so happened that some of the branches fell on the roof of the house of the de facto complainant and naturally caused damages on its roof. The allegation is that the petitioners had destroyed the fencing and entered her property and then caught hold of her hair and hit with a stick and in that process the first petitioner was aided by the rest of the petitioners. The aforesaid statement led to the filing of the complaint. Even according to the statement given by the de facto complainant, the incident alleged to have been occurred, had occurred on 29. 3. 2009, but it is seen that the statement visited with the registration of the crime was furnished to the police only on 1. 4. 2009. According to the petitioners, there is absolutely no reason for the de facto complainant to raise any grievance against the petitioners.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor.