IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2895 of 2010() ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.1355/2010 Dated 23/03/2010 OS.385/1996 of MUNSIF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY . CRIME NO.42/2010 OF KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION.(KOTTAYAM DIST.) .................... PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ HANEEFA, S/O.MEERA RAWTHAR, EDAMANA-MADATHANIYIL HOUSE, MANAGALLOOR BHAGOM, KORATTY KARA, KOOVAPALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.K.S.ROCKEY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 2895 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 324, 326 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 23.01.2010, accused No.1 attacked the de facto complainant with an iron rod and inflicted fracture to her left leg on an account of previous enmity. De facto complainant is a lady aged 70 years. The motive is some civil dispute between the parties. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that an iron rod was used for the offence and it is not so far not recovered and petitioner is required for interrogation and recovery. 4. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner had already filed a petition for anticipatory bail and as per order dated 23.03.2010 in bail application No. 1355/2010, it was dismissed. Petitioner has put forward the same contention, that there is a civil dispute between the parties etc. I am satisfied that this is B.A. No. 2895 of 2010 2 not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail 5. Petitioner's custody will be required for interrogation and recovery of the weapon used in the offence. Though the incident happened as early as on 23.01.2010 about four months back, petitioner has not surrendered or co-operated with the investigation but he has chosen to file anticipatory bail for the second time. In the above circumstances, I direct that petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within one week from today and co-operate with the investigation. No further application for anticipatory bail will be entertained. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln