IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2709 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.61/2010 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR. (S): ACCUSED NO.2 -------------------------------- M. LATHEESH KUMAR, S/O. NARAYANAN, ANUPAMA, VAYIPARAMBA, AZHIKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2709 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 25th May, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is the brother-in-law of the deceased woman. This is second application for anticipatory bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application and pointed out that this Court had found in the earlier application for anticipatory bail that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. No change of circumstances is pointed out to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per his instructions, petitioner has no involvement in the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as revealed from the investigation conducted in this case. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that Annexure A order was passed by this Court in an application for anticipatory bail filed by petitioner and the following findings and observations BA NO.2709/10 2 were made in the order : “Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the accused, I do not think that this is a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the investigation of the case. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 6. On hearing both sides, I do not find any ground to come to a different finding. Petitioner has not made out any ground to grant anticipatory bail. This Court having found that the custodial interrogation of petitioner may be required, petitioner is bound to appear before the Investigating Officer without any delay. The earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as early as on 9.4.2010 and petitioner's presence could not be procured so far. Hence, the following order is passed : (i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation. (ii) Whether the petitioner surrenders or not, police is at BA NO.2709/10 3 liberty to arrest him and proceed against him in accordance with law. (iii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner will be entertained. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs