IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4014 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.404/2010 OF THRIKKODITHANAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- D.SURESH, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, `SUDARSANAM' HOUSE, MADAPPALLY P.O., MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM-686 546. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, THRIKKODITHANAM POLICE STATION, THRIKKODITHANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT (NOTICE TO WHOM MAY BE SERVED ON THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.4014 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 332, 323 and 294(b) of IPC. According to prosecution, de facto complainant, a junior public health nurse, and a Junior Health Inspector were in discharge of their official duty and they were explaining about vaccination to be given to children, at the house of one Thankachan. Petitioner, who is a panchayat member came there and assaulted both the nurse and Health inspector who are women. The health Inspector was beaten up by petitioner, while the Government diary which was in her hand fell down. The said diary was thrown away by petitioner and thereafter, de facto complainant was pushed by catching hold on her shoulder and her head got hit against the wall and thereby committed the offences stated above. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was some dispute in respect of preparing list of eligible persons for getting financial aid from the panchayat for construction of latrine and because of this, a false complaint is filed against petitioner. No incident as alleged happened. Even going by the FIS, it can be B.A No.4014 OF 2010 2 seen that before petitioner left the place, he had told them whatever work they wanted, could be done. Therefore, the intention is not to obstruct the Government servants from discharging their duty. It is also submitted that de facto complainant did not sustain any injury in the incident. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. De facto complainant was hospitalised after the incident and she has given a statement from the hospital. It is not correct to say that the officials were not prevented from discharging their duty. Petitioner had told the public servants that they shall not do any survey in his ward and they had explained that they would have to do their duty and this had offended him and he assaulted them. Thereafter, he abused them and told them to do any work they wished and left the place. 5. On hearing both sides and going through the case diary, I find that the allegations made against petitioner are serious in nature. There is only a bare assertion of innocence and petitioner has not made out any ground to get anticipatory bail. De facto complainant was first examined at the public health center and B.A No.4014 OF 2010 3 thereafter, she was referred to the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, as seen from the medical records. I do not find any reason to grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv