IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 401 of 2009 ---------------------------- ( CRIME NO. 25/06 OF KAZHAKUTTOM POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER/A2: ----------------------- ARUN @ 3D ARUN, KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, NEAR MULLUVILA GROUND, ATTIPRA VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR, MR.G.VENUGOPAL, MR.SHAJIN S.HAMEED. RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKUTTOM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVA KUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.401 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with 149 of I.P.C. Petitioner was an accused in S.C.No.1342/07 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track-I, Thiruvananthapuram. He was granted bail in the crime stage and also in the committal stage. During the trial, he did not appear in the court. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was arrested on 21.08.2008 and he is in custody for the past more than 5 months and hence, bail may be granted. 4. This is the second application for bail. The earlier application filed by petitioner before this court as Annexure B was dismissed by this court on 30.09.2008 in B.A.No.6001 of 2008. It was observed by this court in the said order that petitioner was not able to convince this court that he had not received any summons from the Sessions Court. This court had also observed that the proceedings against petitioner under the Gunda Act are at the final stage as seen from Paragraph 7 of the B.A.No.401 of 2009 2 order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On going through the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it can also be seen that he had considered all the relevant aspects and found that the witnesses are made to appear for trial repeatedly, since the accused was absconding. I do not find any reason to grant bail to petitioner at this stage. 5. However, it appears from the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that in the bail application, petitioner was silent about the reason for non appearance before the court during the relevant period. If petitioner can satisfy the learned Additional Sessions Judge about the reason for non appearance and bail application, if any, is moved, it can be again reconsidered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and disposed of the same on merit. Hence, petitioner is at liberty to move the learned Additional Sessions Judge for bail again in the light of the observations made by this court in this order. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac