KOCHI: The Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to a Kumbalam native who was booked on charges of assaulting a KSEB official after trespassing into the office at Panangad on August 12. Shaji T P, 50, was granted bail after the court raised suspicion about the allegations levelled against him by the KSEB officials and police.
It was alleged that the accused trespassed into the KSEB office and criminally intimidated an official on duty by holding the collar of his shirt and pushing him against a wall. The petitioner claimed that the officials disconnected the electricity connection to his house after he failed to clear off the dues.
When Shaji’s anticipatory bail plea came up for hearing, the public prosecutor opposed it and submitted that the accused needed to be questioned in police custody. However, Shaji’s counsel claimed that it was the petitioner who was assaulted by the KSEB officials.
On August 6, the KSEB officials disconnected the power supply. On August 10, the petitioner paid the bill and requested them to restore the connection, but the officials failed to do it. The next day, Shaji contacted KSEB’s customer care. The staff then restored the power supply by breaking open the locked gate of his house when none was there. On August 12, Shaji complained about it to the KSEB assistant engineer.
However, the other officials restrained him at the KSEB office and pushed him down, the petition stated. Shaji also produced documents related to the medical treatment he underwent after the incident.
After hearing both sides, the court went through the First Information Statement (FIS) and found it was given only on August 18, six days after the said incident
“Considering the fact that the alleged incident took place on August 12 and the FIS was given after a gap of six days, the court feels suspicion regarding the allegation raised against the petitioner. Moreover, there is nothing mentioned in FIS regarding the delay. Considering the nature of the allegations and stage of the investigation, and also the fact that no recovery is to be effected, the court feels that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required,” the court observed.