IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8723 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.465/2011 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : ----------------------- 1. SURESHAN V.V., S/O.LATE KUNHAPPAN, VATTIAN VEETTIL, MANIYATTU, MANIYATTU P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. SANTHOSH V.V., S/O.LATE KUNHAPPAN, VATTIAN VEETTIL, MANIYATTU, MANIYATTU P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANHANGAD. PIN 671121. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.8723 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.465 of 2011 of Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 376, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioners filed Bail Application No.4571 of 2011 before this Court for anticipatory bail. That was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The order dated 17/06/2011 reads as follows:- “Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.465/2011 of Chandera Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 3. After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 112 of the verdict of the Apex Court in Bail Appln.No.8723/2011 : 2 : Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others - (2011) 1 SCC 694 , I am of the view that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature, since the investigating officer has not had the advantage of interrogating the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 29.06.2011 or on 30.06.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case the petitioners are arrested by the Investigating Officer before interrogation, the petitioners shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and permitted to file an application for regular bail. In case the interrogation of the petitioners is without arresting them, the petitioners shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned on the same day or the next day and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that the petitioners have been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, consider and dispose of their application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed. In case the petitioners while surrendering before the Investigating Officer have deprived the investigating officer sufficient time for interrogation, the officer shall complete the interrogation even if it is beyond the time limit fixed as above and submit a report to that effect to the Magistrate or the Court concerned. Likewise, the Magistrate or the Court also will not be Bail Appln.No.8723/2011 : 3 : bound by the time limit fixed as above if sufficient time was not available after the production or appearance of the petitioners . This petition is disposed of as above.” 4. The petitioners did not comply with the directions contained in the order dated 17/06/2011. They filed Crl.M.Appln.No.4232 of 2011 for extension of time to surrender before the Investigating Officer. That application was allowed and the time for surrender was extended. 5. Instead of complying with the directions issued by this Court in an application for anticipatory bail, the petitioners have filed fresh bail application for anticipatory bail on the ground that there are change of circumstances. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the mother of the de facto complainant filed W.P.(C)No.19720 of 2011 praying for entrusting the investigation with an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. That Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 21st July, 2011. Another circumstance pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the de facto complainant made a statement before the doctor, who treated her that she was Bail Appln.No.8723/2011 : 4 : sexually abused by the second petitioner on a particular date, which was not mentioned in the F.I. Statement. 6. The circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be treated as subsequent events at all warranting a second bail application being entertained. The petitioners having not complied with the direction issued by the court either within the time originally fixed or within the time subsequently fixed, cannot aspire for any relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If another order of anticipatory bail is granted, it would have the effect of virtually reviewing the order of 17/06/2011 which is not permissible under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj