IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3988 of 2009 CRIME NO.45 OF 2008 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------- MUHAMMADALI, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.ABU, MATTUVAL HOUSE, PATHIMANGALAM, KUNNAMANGALAM, AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN SMT.P.A.PRIYA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S.CHOLAMANDALAM DBS FINANCE LIMITED, DARE HOUSE, NO.2 N.S.C. BOSE ROAD, PARRYS, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER, MR.VIPIN VENUGOPAL, BRM, CALICUT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009, ALONG WITH BA NO. 4139 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NOS.3988 & 4139 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th August, 2009 O R D E R B.A.No.3988 of 2009 is filed by accused No.1, while B.A.No.4139 of 2009 is filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.45 of 2008 of Kunnamangalam Police Station for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 9.2.2008, the accused persons assaulted the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the High Court of Madras and a Head Constable of the Kerala Police when they tried to seize the truck owned by the first accused, as per the order passed by the Madras High Court. It is alleged that the accused persons obstructed the Advocate Commissioner and the Police Constable from seizing the vehicle and from discharging their duties. B.A. NOS. 3988 & 4139 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 4. The petitioners filed B.A.No.7729 of 2008 before this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail. That Bail Application was dismissed by this Court as per the order dated 13.2.2009. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the materials in the case diary, the Advocate commissioner had showed the order of the High Court and in spite of that, petitioners have committed the offence. Petitioners are accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. On considering the rival contentions, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. However, if petitioners surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned and move an application under Section 437 Cr.P.C., it shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible on merit, untrammelled by any of the observations made in this order on merit. The crime is registered as early as on 09.02.2008 and more than a year has elapsed. Hence, the following order is passed: B.A. NOS. 3988 & 4139 OF 2009 :: 3 :: i) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer or the Magistrate court concerned without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed.” 5. The petitioners did not surrender either before the investigating officer or before the learned Magistrate, as directed in the order dated 13.2.2009. They were not arrested either. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter was settled between M/s.Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited (on whose application the Advocate Commissioner was appointed) and the first accused on 13.2.2008 and the vehicle was surrendered to the financier. At the time of disposal of B.A.No.7729 of 2008 it was not brought to the notice of the Court. B.A. NOS. 3988 & 4139 OF 2009 :: 4 :: 7. There is no subsequent event which can be said to be constituting a change of circumstance. The fact that the petitioners did not bring to the notice of the Court the agreement dated 13.2.2008 is not a ground to consider the second application for anticipatory bail. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the apprehension of the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate may not consider the application for regular bail on the same date on which it is filed. The petitioners are free to submit all the relevant facts before the learned Magistrate, which will be taken into account. It cannot be said that the learned Magistrate is unaware of the decisions of this Court in the matter of disposal of the Bail Applications. For the aforesaid reasons, these Bail Applications are dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/