IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1383 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.781/2002 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 4: ------------------------------------------ 1. JOSE, S/O.KUNJU KUNJU, KODIYIL VEEDU, NIRAPPUVILA, VILANGARA MURI, UMMANNOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA. 2. JOY, S/O.ABRAHAM, NIRAPPUVILA PUTHEN VEETTIL, NIRAPPUVILA, VILANGARA MURI, UMMANNOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION, KOTTARAKARA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 1383 OF 2008 A ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Second application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 4 in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under sections 326 and 307 read with 149 IPC. The petitioners, along with the 3rd accused, had come to this Court for anticipatory bail earlier and this Court by order dated 6.7.05 in BA.3918/05 had dismissed the said application with a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioners have not so far entered appearance before the learned Magistrate or the investigator. They, after more than two years of the dismissal of the earlier application, have come before this Court again now with this fresh prayer for anticipatory bail. 2. It is by now trite that a person, whose application BA.1383/08 : 2 : for anticipatory bail was once dismissed earlier and who has not chosen to challenge that order, must show sufficient change of circumstances to persuade this Court to entertain a later fresh application for anticipatory bail. Called upon to explain such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners only submits that there has been elapse of a long period of time from the date on which the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed earlier. Passage of time by itself cannot be a justifiable reason for a fresh different consideration of the application for anticipatory bail. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation thereafter has not revealed anything in favour of the petitioners which would justify or warrant the invocation of the jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.PC. 3. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. No circumstances are urged before me which can justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the BA.1383/08 : 3 : petitioners in the second application for anticipatory bail. I repeat that the petitioners must surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the normal and usual course. 4. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioners surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and apply for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks