IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 514 of 2009() ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN BA.7791/2008 CRIME NO.344/CR/SIGIII/2005 OF CBCID KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED : ---------------------------------- K.MUHAMMADALI, S/O. MOYIN HAJI, AGED 35, KARIMBINKAL HOUSE, MONGAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DETECTIVE INSPECTOR CBCID, SIG III/2005, KOZHIKODE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.514 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. This is the second application for anticipatory bail. The alleged offences are under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with 34 I.P.C. According to prosecution, registered owner of a mini lorry wanted to purchase a mini bus and he entrusted first accused with all papers and documents to purchase the same. The first accused in furtherance of common intention with two other accused, purchased a chassis of a goods vehicle and converted into that of a mini bus at the body building workshop of petitioner and it was taken for registration. Later, it was noticed that several documents were forged and petitioner and others committed various offfences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is implicated only on the basis of the statement given by a co-accused, which is not admissible. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the allegations made in the B.A.No.514 of 2009 2 complaint are serious and this court had considered in detail the rival contentions and found that petitioner is bound to surrender before the investigating officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. It is also found that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed, as per order dated 06.01.2009 in B.A.No.7791 of 2008. Petitioner has again filed this petition, without obeying the direction to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this court cannot entertain the second application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner has not obeyed the direction issued by this court in the earlier order. If anticipatory bail is granted as per the second application for anticipatory bail, it will amount to review of the order, which is not permissible in law. Hence, the following order is passed :- i) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders B.A.No.514 of 2009 3 or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court, since on the facts in this case, this court ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in any subsequent anticipatory bail application will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac