IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3208 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.503/2010 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA .................... (S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. MADHU B.GOPAN, S/O.R.GOPINATHAN NAIR, GOKULAM HOUSE, PANAVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA. 2. P.O.MATHEW, S/O.OUSEPH, PULIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THYKKATTUSSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA. 3. P.N.RAJU, S/O.NARAYANAN, NIKARTHIL HOUSE, PANAVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3208 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 30th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 332 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, defacto complainant, who is a KSRTC driver reached the KSRTC bus stand at 7.10 p.m. with his vehicle and when the passengers were getting down, petitioners (accused nos.1 to 3), in furtherance of common intention, caused hurt to defacto complainant by beating him with hands and abusing him in obscene language in public and poured urine on his head, from the bottle which was in the possession of the accused. They also kicked defacto complainant and garlanded him with chappals. The colleagues of defacto complainant came forward when all the three accused got out of the vehicle and escaped. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners have not committed any offences, as alleged. The defacto complainant cannot be said to be on duty, at the time when the offence is alleged to have committed. As per the first BA NO. 3208/10 2 information statement, the incident happened at 7.10 p.m., but the log book of the vehicle would show that the vehicle was taken to the garage at 7.10 p.m. If the entry in log book is accepted, the incident would not have happened at 7.10 p.m. If at all something happened, it would have happened only after the duty time. Therefore, offence under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code (which is the only non-bailable offence) in this case would not be attracted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the time at which defacto complainant reached the KSRTC bus stand is 7.10 p.m. and log book only shows the time of arrival of bus in the bus stand. The passengers were in the process of getting down, when the incident happened. It cannot be said that the incident did not happen during the duty time. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the serious nature of the allegations made and the manner in which defacto complainant was treated, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The seriousness of the allegations made against petitioners is a relevant factor to decide whether BA NO. 3208/10 3 anticipatory bail can be granted or not. Taking into account the manner in which the defacto complainant was assaulted, I am least inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The incident happened as early as on 27.4.2010 and petitioners are bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs