IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3555 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.254/09 OF KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM. (S): PETITIONER ------------------------------ ASHRAF K.V., KUZHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, LAYILA KULAMBU, CHELAKKODE (PO), THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THE S.I OF KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3555 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 16th June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner along with two others committed theft of two cows, belonging to defacto complainant. Petitioner is third accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that first accused is arrested and hence petitioner also apprehends arrest and he may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is second application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner had earlier filed an application for anticipatory bail, as B.A.7152/09 and it was dismissed on 14.12.2009. After considering the various contentions raised, the court found it not fit to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as per Annexure B order by this Court and it was held in paragraph 6 as follows :- “Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against petitioner, I do not BA NO.3555/10 2 think that this is a fit case where the anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. Custodial interrogation may be required in this case.” 6. I do not find any reason to come to a different view and I have no doubt that there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail. This Court had already found that if anticipatory bail is granted to petitioner, it will adversely affect investigation in this case and that custodial interrogation may be required in this case. Petitioner has not surrendered before the lower court or before the Investigating Officer so far. The incident is alleged to have taken place about 10 months back. Petitioner is needed for interrogation and hence, the following order is passed : (i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. (ii) No further application for anticipatory bail in this crime by the petitioner will be entertained by this Court hereafter. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs