IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5598 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.641/2009 OF KASARGOD POLICE STATION. ..................... PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- VIJITH. K., S/O.MADHAVASHETTY. K, AGED 17 YEARS, R.D. NAGAR, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARGOD. BY ADV. MR.S.JIJI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARGOD POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5598 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime No.641/2009 of Kasaragod Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 427 and 452 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 10/11/2009, the following order was passed: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigation officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 18/11/2009 and 19/11/2009. Post on 25/11/2009. The petitioner shall produce a B.A. No. 5598/2009 2 copy of the order before the investigating officer. It is submitted by the learned Pubic Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.641 of 2009 of Kasaragod Police Station. “ 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the direction contained in the order dated 10/11/2009. It is also submitted that after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the case on 30/11/2009. 5. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the direction issued by this Court and also on the ground that charge sheet was laid in the case, I am of the view that the Bail Application is not liable to be granted. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm