IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 29TH APRIL 2008 / 9TH VAISAKHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2618 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.2076/2008 Dated 04/04/2008 .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED:NO.1: ------------------------------ SUBRAN, S/O.KOCHAYYANPPAN, 44 YEARS, ANTHRAPILLY HOUSE, NAYARANGADY, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.2618 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of April, 2008 ORDER Second application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 304 I.P.C and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. An earlier application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed as per order dated 4.4.08. The petitioner has come to this Court again with this application for anticipatory bail. The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor . 2. An earlier application for anticipatory bail having been dismissed and the said order having not been challenged, it is incumbent on the petitioner now to show the change of circumstance to justify the renewed prayer for anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and the owner of the quarry has already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge as per order dated 11.01.08. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that anticipatory bail may now be granted to the petitioner also. B.A.No.2618 of 2008 2 3. The application is opposed. I find absolutely no relevant change of circumstance which can justify the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner now. Even earlier even though the fact that the quarry was owned by the 2nd accused was not disputed, the specific allegation was that the petitioner was running the quarry. In these circumstances, I am satisfied, that this petition does not deserve favourable consideration at present. The petitioner must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the court having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course. 4. This application is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-