IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 504 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.535/07 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED --------------------------------------- MUHAMMED KUNHI MUKKUNNOTH 36 YEARS OF AGE,S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY MUKKUNNOTH HOUSE, BARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA SRI.JOJO PAPPACHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BAKEL POLICE STAT CR.NO.535/2007 OF BAKEL POLICE STATION) REP. BE THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.504 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 308 and 324 r/w 149 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 10.12.07. The petitioner along with some other co- accused had come to this Court claiming anticipatory bail and this Court by order dated 07.01.08 in B.A.No.8019 of 2007 had dismissed the application for anticipatory bail so filed by the petitioner and the other accused. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court again claiming anticipatory bail. It is trite that when one application for anticipatory bail was dismissed and the petitioner again approaches this Court for the same relief, the petitioner must show change of circumstances if any to justify the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by this Court in the second application. 3. Except that some time has elapsed after the dismissal of the earlier application for anticipatory bail, no other specific B.A.No.504 of 2008 2 change of circumstances are brought to my notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when the matter came up for hearing on the previous occasion, certain very important facts were omitted to bring to the notice of this Court. 4. What are those circumstances ? On 07.12.07, the petitioner had complained about commission of offences, inter alia, under Sections 341 and 427 against two named persons and some others. The accused in that crime and the defacto complainant in this crime do all belong to the same political party. The petitioner was threatened to withdraw the allegations raised in the crime registered on 08.12.07. He refused to do that. Only because of that, the present allegations is raised against him in this crime, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find no circumstances which can persuade me to take a different view as there has already been taken in the order dated 07.01.08. I do stick to the view that the petitioner must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 6. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders B.A.No.504 of 2008 3 before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-