IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3803 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.231/10 OF MALAYINKIZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (S): PETITIONER ------------------------------ RAJU, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.C.D.GOPINATHAN, CHAVARNAL THAZHE VEEDU, T.C.55/194, KPA-1, KAIMANAM, PAPPANAMCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI SRI.ZAKEER HUSAIN M.K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAYINKIZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3803 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 1st July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, defacto complainant, who is conductor in a KSRTC bus asked petitioner, who was the driver of a private bus to take the vehicle out of the bus stand. This irritated the petitioner and he got out of the bus and went to the defacto complainant, who was inside the KSRTC bus, caught hold of the collar of his shirt and fisted him on his stomach. He also uttered obscene words against defacto complainant in public and also criminally intimidated him and thereby committed various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was some quarrel between petitioner and defacto complainant and there was heated exchange of words, but no offences, as alleged had taken place. It is also submitted that defacto complainant had not gone to the doctor and no injury was sustained by him. The incident did not happen, as alleged and no BA NO. 3803/10 2 custodial interrogation of petitioner is necessary, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner had shown highhandedness in getting into the KSRTC bus and fisting the defacto complainant on his stomach only because he asked petitioner to take the bus out of the bus stand. The offences alleged in this case are attracted from the allegations made in the complaint, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that clear allegations are made in the F.I. statement against petitioner, which prima facie would attract all the offences alleged. In order to attract the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary that petitioner must sustain external injury. On considering the various facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The mere fact that custodial interrogation is not required is no ground to grant anticipatory bail, especially in cases involving serious allegations. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs