IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2407 of 2010()
1. ANIL SATHYAN, S/O. SATHYAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.K.SUNIL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :20/07/2010
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J
----------------------
B.A.No.2407 OF 2010
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010
O R D E R
This petition is for bail.
2. The alleged offences are under sections 332 and 427 IPC.
According to prosecution, on 31.3.2010 at about 3 pm when
defacto complainant, who is a postman was engaged in his official
duty, petitioner went to him and asked him to return Rs.1,000/-
which he owed to petitioner. Defacto complainant said he did not
owe any money to petitioner. Offended by this, petitioner
assaulted defacto complainant, fisted and beat him. Postal
articles (two registered letters and Rs.8,672/-) were lost in the
course of incident.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is no
intention for the accused to deter a public servant from
discharging his duty. Even according to prosecution, the incident
happened because defacto complainant refused to return the
money, which he owed to petitioner. No weapon was used for the
commission of offence. The offence u/s.332 will not be attracted
since no act was committed by petitioner intending to deter the
public servant from discharging his duty, it is submitted.
B.A. No.2407/10 2
4. This petition is opposed. Leaned public prosecutor
submitted that defacto complainant was a public servant, was in
discharge of his official duty as public servant on the date and
time of occurrence. Petitioner, voluntarily caused hurt to him by
beating and fisting him and defacto complainant also lost some
postal articles which were to be delivered in the course of his
official duty.
5. On hearing both sides and on considering facts of this
case and the nature of allegations made, I do not think that
petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail. Sec.332 will be
attracted, if any person voluntarily causes hurt to any person
being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public
servant. As per the allegations made, defacto complainant was a
public servant and he was in the course of discharge of his official
duty and petitioner has voluntarily caused hurt to defacto
complainant.
This petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Sou.