IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6772 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.195/2008 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION, VELLARADA, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- LALU @ JUSTIN LAL, S/O.STANLY, A.R.VILLA, ANCHUMARAMKALA, VELLARADA VILALGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLARADA POLICE STATION, VELLARADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6772 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 ORDER The petitioner had filed Bail Application No.5088 of 2009 for anticipatory bail. That application was dismissed by the order dated 29th September, 2009. The said order reads as follows: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.195 of 2008 of Vellarada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal BA No.6772/2009 2 Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would affect the proper investigation of the case. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.” 2. There is no reason why the petitioner should be permitted to file a second application for the same relief. All the relevant facts were considered at the time of dismissing the earlier application. There is no change of circumstance warranting a reconsideration of the request for anticipatory bail. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl