IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6291 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 590/2008 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2:- ------------------------------------------------- 1. K.VISWAMBHARAN, S/O KUTTAN, SREE THANKATHIL, CHEMPANARUVI, PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALK. 2. S. MADHU, S/O SOMAN, MADHU BHAVANAM, CHEMPANARUVI, PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6291 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of October,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 341, 427,323 and 34 IPC and section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. According to prosecution, a K.S.R.T.C. bus had a mechanical defect on its way to its destination and petitioners who were travelling in the bus were infuriated by this and they assaulted de facto complainant who was the driver and also caused damaged to the bus. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioners are workers of B.S.P. and they were insisting that the bus should go to Chempanelli Village, for which there is already a permit. This was insisted, since the bus drivers were reluctant to take the buses to such destination. On the ate of occurrence also, when petitioners were travelling in the bus, the driver under the pretext of having some mechanical failure, stopped the bus on the road, in a very remote place and he was found going to a nearby stream and taking water and consuming liquor. This fact was questioned by petitioners. They also threatened that it will be reported to the higher authorities in K.S.R.T.C. and there was an altercation. Except this, nothing had happened. A false complaint BA 6291/08 -2- was filed against petitioners by de facto complainant as a counter blast. It is also submitted that no damage is caused to the bus and the de facto complainant did not sustained any injury. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a case where driver of a K.S.R.T.C. bus was assaulted by passengers and the bus was damaged, since there was a mechanical failure on the bus. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that the bus had damage on the door at the driver seat and also the tire and a mahazar was also prepared showing this. The allegation that there is no damage is not correct. The driver had gone to the doctor and of course, there are no external injuries, except complaints of pain. The incident happened on 11.30 p.m. on 15-9-2008. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that there are only mere assertions on the side of the petitioners regarding the counter allegations, but without any supporting materials. No complaint was given to the higher authorities in the K.S.R.T.C. against de facto complainant, even though root cause of the incident was alleged consumption of liquor of the driver on the way. The allegation that no damage was caused to the vehicle is not BA 6291/08 -3- correct, in view of the contents of the mahazar, as pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Considering all these facts, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Section 438 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary remedy and it cannot be invoked unless there are special circumstances to invoke the same. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.