IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1635 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1071/2009 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------- SURESH KUMAR.G, AGED 45, S/O.GOPALAPANICKER, RAVEENDHARA MANDHIRAM, KALAYANADE, RESIDING AT PUTHENTHODU, PERA NO.92 F, PETTAH.PO, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI. PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. S.I.OF POLICE, PUNALUR POLICE STATION. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1635 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1071/2009 of Punalur Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 326 and 308 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On 12.06.2009, when the Bail Application came up for hearing the following order was passed :- “ It is brought to my notice that the petitioner has filed B.A. No. 653 of 2009 which was dismissed on 13th February 2009 wherein the petitioner was directed to surrender before the investigating agency and wherein it was also made clear that no further application will lie at the instance of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would like to get instructions in the matter. Post on 22.06.2009” B.A.No. 1635 of 2009 2 4. Subsequently on 22.06.2009, 30.06.2009. 08.07.2009 and 22.07.2009, the petitioner sought time and the case was being adjourned from time to time. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no instructions as to whether the petitioner had filed B.A. No. 653 of 2009. In view of the direction in the order in B.A. No. 653/2009 to surrender before the investigating agency, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to file a second application for Anticipatory Bail. It is relevant to note that in the present Bail Application, the petitioner has not disclosed the filing of B.A. No. 653/2009. This conduct of the petitioner is highly reprehensible. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln