IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3594 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.492/10 OF BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ ACCUSED ------------------------------- NAZARUDHEEN.A, CHAMAVILA KARAKKATTUVILA VEETIL, AITHIYOOR, VENGANOOR DESOM, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE --------------------------------- S.I OF POLICE, BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.3594 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 279, 294 (b), 353 IPC and 52 of KP Act. According to prosecution, on 27.5.2010 at about 6'O clock, petitioner drove a vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and when policemen on duty gave signal to stop, he stopped the car but abused the officials in filthy language and assaulted the officials and caused hurt to them. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no injury was caused to the policemen, as alleged. It is also submitted that it is impossible to drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in Balaramapuram junction. If anybody would have been injured in the incident, some other sections would have been included while registering the FIR, it is submitted. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that it is not correct to say that no injury is caused to the officials in the incident or that petitioner was not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent B.A. No.3594/10 2 manner. The wound certificate would show that police constable and Additional Sub inspector sustained injuries. It is also not correct to say that vehicle cannot be driven in a rash and negligent manner, as alleged by prosecution. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I am satisfied that the official sustained injuries as seen from the wound certificate. There are allegations that petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In a case of this nature, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. It is also to be mentioned here that Section 353 will be attracted, if a petitioner voluntarily causes hurt to a public servant on public duty and even if other offences relating to hurt is not included, it may not affect veracity of prosecution case. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.