IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7424 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1382/08 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION PETITIONER -------------------- NAVAS, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED, THACHETHU HOUSE, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, PAYIPRA, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE S.H.O MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7424 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 308, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 26.10.2008 at about 7 PM, petitioner wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and both accused assaulted him. Second accused beat him with an iron rod and inflicted injuries. A crime was registered under the above said Sections on the information given by de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this is the second application for anticipatory bail. After dismissal of the anticipatory bail application, accused 3 and 4 were deleted from the array of accused. Petitioner is first accused. Petitioner has actually not committed any offence and even according to prosecution he has only caught hold of de facto complainant. There is also a counter case and the First Information Statement is Annexure-A5. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant had sustained injury and BA.7424/08 2 specific overt act is alleged against petitioner. An earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court and there is no ground to review the order, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through Annexure-A3 order, passed by this Court in an earlier application for anticipatory bail, I find that petitioner was directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation or surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned. This order was passed as early as on 12.11.2008. Petitioner has not complied with the direction issued by this Court. I have considered all the facts and circumstances in the earlier order and found that the mere existence of another crime in respect of the same incident may not by itself be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in the above circumstances. i) It is made clear that no other petition for anticipatory bail by the petitioner will be entertained. ii) The police is at liberty to arrest petitioner and proceed against him in accordance with law without any delay. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.