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. 7919 of 2008(F) ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 235/2008 OF ULIKKAL POLICE STATION) ............... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O.JANARDHANAN, AGED 28 YEARS, SARADHA VILASOM UP SCHOOL, PARIKKALAM. 2. V.T.VINOD, S/O.THAMBAN, AGED 28 YEARS, ALORA HOUSE PARIKKALAM. BY ADV. MR.CIBI THOMAS. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT/ STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ULIKKAL POLICE STATION, KANNUR. 2. STATE, REP. BY 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.7919 OF 2008 ---------------------------------- 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 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 I.P.C. According to prosecution, the first accused, defacto complainant and others had gone to the house of one Mohanan, who is a worker of CPI(M). From there, there was a quarrel between Mohanan and the first accused. The defacto complainant intervened and thereafter, while he was going out of the house, the first accused came back with seven others and attacked the defacto complainant. The first accused was armed with weapon. The petitioners are the second and the third accused, who also assaulted the defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that first petitioner is a Peon in the school and if he is arrested and remanded, he will lose his job and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the B.A.No.7919 of 2008 2 anticipatory bail application filed by the same petitioners were considered and disposed of by this court as per order dated 14.10.2008 in B.A.No.6283 of 2008. Considering the nature of the allegations made and the nature of investigation required, this court already found that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners were also directed to surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from the date of disposal of the petition and co-operate with the investigation. But, in spite of expiry of 3½ months, petitioners have not surrendered before the investigating officer and complied with the direction. The investigation is in a stand still. The incident occurred as early as on 11.09.2008. On hearing both sides, none of the facts stated by petitioners' counsel persuade me to grant anticipatory bail. I have considered the merit of the contentions in the earlier application for anticipatory bail field by petitioners. For the sole reason that one of the petitioners is working in a School is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are required for the purpose of investigation and interrogation. Hence, the following order is passed : B.A.No.7919 of 2008 3 i) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac