IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4155 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.353/07 OF KOOTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.4 ----------------------------------------- MUHAMMED SAFEEL, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT "RUBY", THOKKILANGADI, KOOTHUPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.4155 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code. This case is an offshoot of BJP-CPM activists' rivalry. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail earlier and it was dismissed as per order dated 27.2.2008 in B.A.No.823 of 2008 and this petition is opposed. 3. On going through the order dated 27.2.2008 in BA.No.823 of 2008, it is seen that the entire contentions raised now had been considered by this Court while disposing of the earlier bail application. The case diary was also perused by this Court and this Court entered a finding that there are no features which can justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also found that the petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. In spite of this, the petitioner did not appear before either the BA.4155/08 2 investigating officer or before the learned Magistrate, so far. The order in the anticipatory bail application was passed as early as on 27.2.2008 and five months have elapsed now. To such an absconder, no leniency can be extended especially since he has not acted in accordance with the spirit of the order passed. The discretionary remedy is not intended to be invoked in favour of such defaulters. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.