IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2007 / 28TH ASHADHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 4363 of 2007() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.3745/2007 Dated 26/06/2007 CMP.1428/2007 of J.M.F.C.-I, CHENGANNUR CRIME NO.227 OF 2007 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- MOHANDAS, AGED 40 YEARS, SON OF KESAVANASARI, SASTHRAM VEEDU, MULAKUZHA P/W IV, KARAKKAD MURI, MULAKUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR P.S., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.4363 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2007 ORDER Application for regular bail. The petitioner faces allegations under Section 302 I.P.C. He has allegedly inflicted multiple serious injuries on his wife with a dangerous weapon on 24.04.07. She succumbed to the injuries later. The petitioner was arrested and continues in custody from 07.05.07. 2. An earlier application for regular bail was dismissed by this Court as per order dated 26.06.07. This order must hence be read in continuation of the said order as I find it unnecessary to advert to the factual details in any further detail in this order. 3. I am not persuaded to agree, considering the nature of the allegations, stage of investigation etc., that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail even at this stage. It is true that the earlier bail application was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner can move this Court for bail again after 10.07.07. But that observation was intended only to avoid unnecessary repetitive attempts by the petitioner. 4. I am not persuaded to agree that the petitioner is entitled to be granted bail even now. Investigator is certainly entitled to further time to complete the investigation. B.A.No.4363 of 2007 2 5. This application for regular bail is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move the learned Sessions Judge or this Court for bail again at a later stage of the investigation - not, at any rate, prior to 02.08.07. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-