IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3208 of 2010()
1. MADHU B.GOPAN,
... Petitioner
2. P.O.MATHEW, S/O.OUSEPH,
3. P.N.RAJU, S/O.NARAYANAN, NIKARTHIL
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :\RI.S.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :30/07/2010
O R D E R
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