IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5675 of 2009 CRIME NO.478 OF 2009 OF RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- SAJIMON, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, KOONAMVANCHICKAL, THALACHIRA, MALAYALAPPUZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, RANNI POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SALIM THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 5675 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of November, 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 accused in Crime No.478 of 2009 of Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 427, 323, 452 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 27.10.2009, the following order was passed: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 AM on 6th and 7th November, 2009. B.A. NO. 5675 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Post on 11th November, 2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.478 of 2009 of Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. The investigating officer would also try to get the presence of the de facto complainant so that the parties could try to settle the disputes.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the the direction contained in the order dated 27.10.2009. 5. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/