IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2480 of 2010() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 226/2010 OF THAMARASSERRY POLICE, KOZHIKODE ..................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED : -------------------------------- SHIMJITH, AGED 35 YEARS, SON OF SREEDHARAN, SREERANJINI, KUNNATH HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM MURI, CHETHUKADAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------- S.I.OF POLICE, THAMARASSERRY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, (REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM). BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 2480 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 353 and 283 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 11.04.2010 at about 4.45 P.M., petitioner along with two others were travelling in a tempo traveller. Petitioner (A1) was driving the vehicle and they chased a KSRTC bus and intercepted it. They opened the driver's door and slapped the de facto complainant, who is the driver of the KSRTC bus and thereby committed the various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the incident did not happen as alleged. Petitioner's vehicle got into an accident with a KSRTC bus and the vehicle was driven by petitioner's driver. There was some altercation with the KSRTC driver, on account of the accident, but a false case is foisted against petitioner. He was not present at the scene. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that petitioner is already questioned by police and the vehicle was also seized. The vehicle was returned also. B.A. No. 2480 / 2010 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not correct to say that petitioner was not present at the scene. The materials in the case diary shows that petitioner was present at the scene and he had driven the vehicle by himself and the de facto complainant was assaulted by him and others. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. I do not find any materials to support the plea of innocence put forward by petitioner. Petitioner is at liberty to appear before the investigating officer or the Magistrate Court concerned without any delay. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln