IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7402 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.1667/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA CRIME NO.342/08 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------- SANTHOSH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, VELIYIL HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM PANCHAYATH, K.R.PURAM .P.O,CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.THAMPI (SR.) SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7402 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, in furtherance of common intention, petitioner who is the first accused along with other accused allegedly assaulted de facto complainant and inflicted fracture on the hand as well as on the knee. A crime was registered on the basis of a statement given by de facto complainant. 3. This is the second application for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that co-accused were granted anticipatory bail and hence, petitioner may also be granted anticipatory bail. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that an iron rod was used by petitioner and such weapon is not so far recovered. He is required for custodial interrogation and enquiry. Taking into consideration the several facts, this Court passed an order on 26th August, 2008 (Annexure-II) in B.A.No.5275/2008 holding that petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail order passed by this Court in favour of other accused, since he is not similarly placed. The other co-accused were granted anticipatory bail since their involvement in the offence and the identity were under dispute etc. BA.7402/08 2 5. On going through Annexure-II order passed by this Court in the earlier application for anticipatory bail, I find that this Court had found that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to petitioner especially since he is required for recovery and interrogation. Petitioner filed this anticipatory bail application again, even though the earlier application was dismissed as early as in August, 2008. The crime is registered as early as in June, 2008 and for the past so many months, petitioner was absconding without surrendering before the police or before the Court. It is the duty of this Court to see that the prson who evades law, surrenders to law. 6. Therefore, petitioner was directed to appear before this Court. He accordingly appeared before this Court. Though this Court can cause petitioner to be arrested immediately and take him into custody, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner's wife is seriously ill and petitioner will surrender before the investigating officer on Monday, 12.1.2009. Taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, I refrain from causing petitioner to be arrested today. On hearing both sides, I pass the following order: i) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 12.1.2009 between 10 a.m and 1 p.m and co- operate with the investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be dealt with in accordance with law. BA.7402/08 3 ii) Whether petitioner surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest petitioner at any time and proceed in accordance with law. iii) No petition for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained hereafter. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.