IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4324 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.76/2008 OF PARAVUR POLICE STATION OF KOLLAM DISTRICT. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------- AJITH, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. SUNDARESAN NAMBOORAZHIKOM VEEDU NEDUNGOLAM PO, PARAVUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PARAVUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No.4324 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The offences alleged are under Sections 294(b), 324, 332 and 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 13.2.2008 at about 5 p.m. two identifiable persons came on a motorcyle, abused and pelted stones against the de facto complainant, who is a railway employee, while he was in the course of discharge of his official duty on the railway track. The incident occurred since he refused to answer the train time when the petitioner and another asked for train time. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in the crime. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no injury was caused to the de facto complainant and there was only an altercation between the de facto complainant and the accused and de facto complainant did not go for any medical consultation and hence he requests that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor [B.A.No.4324/08] 2 submitted that in order to attract an offence under Section 332 IPC, no injury is necessary. 5. On hearing both sides, on the facts of this case, taking into consideration the nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner's identity has to be confirmed, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Though the crime was registered five months back petitioner could not be arrested so far. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.