IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6706 of 2008() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.618/2008 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION. PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------------------------- C.S .RAVEENDRA NATH, 53 YEARS S/O.GOPALAN, CHIRAYIL HOUSE WEST OF BOAT JETTY JN., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA SMT.MANJU R. KARTHA RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT : --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KEALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.618/2008). BY SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.6706 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 506(ii) and 308 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, defacto complainant is an Inspector in charge of Vigilance Wing of K.S.R.T.C. The petitioner came for duty after getting drunk and this matter was reported by the defacto complainant. The petitioner was immediately suspended and infuriated by this, he assaulted deafacto complainant on the same day, on 08.10.2008 by using iron rod on his head and he was also criminally intimidated. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is rivalry between the INTUC workers and the CITU workers. The petitioner is a worker of the INTUC and defacto complainant is a CITU worker. There is also an order issued by another bench of this court that the salary shall not be disbursed of two CITU workers. Because of this, a false complaint is filed against the petitioner, it is submitted. No serious injury is sustained and petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public B.A.6706 of 2008 2 Prosecutor submitted that in the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner had attended the duty in a drunken state and this fact was reported by defacto complainant and this was the reason for attack against him using iron rod. He sustained injury on the head. On hearing both sides and considering the nature of allegations made, I am least inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Though learned counsel for petitioner produced an order issued by this court by which there was a direction not to disburse salary to the CITU workers, it is also not made clear, how that order helps petitioner in his defence. The incident occurred as early as on 08.10.2008. The petitioner shall surrender before Magistrate court concerned or before Investigating Officer forthwith and whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him at any time. With this observation and direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac