IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2407 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CRMP.948/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM ......................................... CRIME NO. 225/2010 OF MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION .......................................... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------ ANIL SATHYAN, S/O. SATHYAVAN, PUTHENPURAYIL, MADUKKA, MUNDAKKAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (THROUGH THE S.I OF POLICE, MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. V.TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.2407 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 332 and 427 IPC. According to prosecution, on 31.3.2010 at about 3 pm when defacto complainant, who is a postman was engaged in his official duty, petitioner went to him and asked him to return Rs.1,000/- which he owed to petitioner. Defacto complainant said he did not owe any money to petitioner. Offended by this, petitioner assaulted defacto complainant, fisted and beat him. Postal articles (two registered letters and Rs.8,672/-) were lost in the course of incident. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is no intention for the accused to deter a public servant from discharging his duty. Even according to prosecution, the incident happened because defacto complainant refused to return the money, which he owed to petitioner. No weapon was used for the commission of offence. The offence u/s.332 will not be attracted since no act was committed by petitioner intending to deter the public servant from discharging his duty, it is submitted. B.A. No.2407/10 2 4. This petition is opposed. Leaned public prosecutor submitted that defacto complainant was a public servant, was in discharge of his official duty as public servant on the date and time of occurrence. Petitioner, voluntarily caused hurt to him by beating and fisting him and defacto complainant also lost some postal articles which were to be delivered in the course of his official duty. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering facts of this case and the nature of allegations made, I do not think that petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail. Sec.332 will be attracted, if any person voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant. As per the allegations made, defacto complainant was a public servant and he was in the course of discharge of his official duty and petitioner has voluntarily caused hurt to defacto complainant. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.