IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6706 of 2008()
1. C.G.RAVEENDRA NATH, 53 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KEALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :04/11/2008
O R D E R
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