IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6309 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.180/2011 OF PEERUMADE POLICE STATION IDUKKI DISTRICT PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- REVI S/O.THANKAVEL, KOZHIKKANAM ESTATE LAYAM KOZHIKKANAM KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERUMADE POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6309 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011 ORDER When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 16th August, 2011, the following order was passed: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.27 in Crime No.180 of 2011 of Peerumed Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The date of occurrence was on 20.3.2011. The allegations levelled against the petitioner, prima facie, do not indicate that the overt acts alleged against him were attributable to the grievous hurt caused to the de facto complainant or to the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the petitioner should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Bail Appln.No.6309/2011 : 2 : petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 20th and 21st August, 2011. 5. Post on 25th August, 2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.180 of 2011 of Peerumed Police Station, till 27.8.2011. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner did not comply with the directions contained in the order. Therefore, he is not entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj