IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3328 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.1012/2010 OF KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, VALIYA VEETTIL KIZHAKKATHIL (CHERIYIL VEEDU), ANDAMON, KALAYAPURAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3328 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 307, 353, 294(b) & 283 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 30.04.2010, at about 11 a.m, de facto complainant who is the Tahsildar got information that mud was being removed illegally from a property which is situated by the side of national highway. He reached the spot and found that mud was being removed and he asked the persons to stop the illegal act. In a vehicle mud was already filled and petitioner was its driver. Petitioner drove the vehicle in such a manner to hit against de facto complainant , but and somehow he moved out and escaped. On a complaint made by him, crime was registered under the above section. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no offence under Section 307 or 353 of IPC will be attracted in this case. No injury is caused to de facto complainant. No assault or criminal force was used against him. Petitioner is only the driver of the vehicle and he was carrying mud under instruction for levelling a property and he did not know that there was illegal soil mining. Vehicle was stopped a few feet away from the place. B.A No.3328 OF 2010 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made against petitioner are serious. The vehicle was driven against de facto complainant so as to hit de facto complainant and it is only becausehe managed to escape that nothing untoward happened. It is also submitted that offence under Section 307 of IPC is deleted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is true that there is no allegation that petitioner used any criminal force against de facto complainant or he at least even touched de facto complainant's body. But, to attract offence under Section 353, it is enough if an assault is made. A person will be guilty of “assault” if he makes any gesture or preparation which is likely to cause any person to apprehend that he who makes the gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, as per Section 351 of IPC. Considering various aspects, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE B.A No.3328 OF 2010 3 vdv