IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6364 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 194/2007 OF MALAYINKEEZH POLICE STATION PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:- -------------------------------------------- SHINE DAS, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O NJANA DAS, DAS NIVAS, PANGODE, MELE ANTHIYOORKONAM, KOLLODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAYINKEEZH POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUOTR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6364 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of October,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 323, 324, 308 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, on 17-8-2007 petitioner (A1) along with other accused, in furtherance of their common intention to commit culpable homicide of de facto complainant, assaulted him. Stick was used by 2nd accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant is a drunkard and he teased girls while petitioner and others intervened, but no offence as alleged was committed. De facto complainant did not sustain any injuries, as revealed from Annexure-1 certificate, it is submitted. As per the certificate, no external injuries has been sustained and there is only complaints of pain. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the crime was registered as early in 2007 and charge-sheet has been laid in July, 2008. Petitioner is absconding. Though the incident occurred as early as in August, 2007, even after expiry of one year, petitioner has not co-operated with the investigation or surrendered before BA 6364/08 -2- the court. On two occasions, petitioner filed application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and both the petitions were dismissed as per orders dated 16-1-2008 and 22-9-2008. Now this is the third attempt. 5. The learned Sessions Judge recorded that there was no extra ordinary circumstances to invoke section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner had neither appeared before the Investigating Officer or surrendered before the court, even though the incident happened in 2007. It was also observed that his earlier application was also dismissed and in spite of that he had not surrendered before the court and instead, he had filed another anticipatory bail application. 6. I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner was shown as an absconding accused, since he was not available for investigation and evidently, warrant would have been issued against him. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere. 7. However, I make it clear that considerations for granting bail under section 437 Cr.P.C. are different from considerations for grant of anticipatory bail. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all his contentions regarding offence under section 308 BA 6364/08 -3- IPC, at the time when he surrenders and hearing of his bail application. With these observations, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.