IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 10278 of 2011() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.1473/2009 Dated 25/03/2009 CRIME NO.80/2008 OF MALA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED : ---------------------------------------- 1. XAVIER,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.ROCKEY, VADAKKUMPADAM HOUSE, MURINGOOR PO,VADAKKUMURI VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY ,THRISSUR. 2. BAIJU,AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ROCKEY, VADAKKUMPADAM HOUSE, MURINGOOR PO,VADAKKUMURI VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY ,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR SMT.PREETHI K.PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.AMAR RAGH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.80/2008 OF MALA POLICE STATION). 2. DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CBCID SIG II, ERNAKULAM,PIN 682 020, CRIME BRANCH ,CRIME INVESTIGATIION DEPARTMENT,SPECIAL INVESTIGATION GROUP-11). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.10278 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011 ORDER The petitioners filed Bail Application No.1473 of 2009 before this Court for anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest in Crime No.80 of 2008 of Mala Police Station. That Bail Application was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 25/03/2009. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 25th March, 2009 is extracted below:- “Petitioners who are the accused in Crime No.80/2008 of Mala Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 489B, 420 read with Section 34 IPC, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 3. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on any day between 28-3-2009 and 31-3-2009 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. The petitioners shall Bail Appln.No.10278/2011 : 2 : thereafter be produced on the same day before the Magistrate who shall consider and dispose of their application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed. This petition is disposed of as above.” 2. The petitioners did not comply with the direction in the order dated 25th March, 2009. They have filed present application for anticipatory bail for the same relief, which was prayed for in Bail Application No.1473 of 2009. It is stated that another case was foisted against them alleging offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and their life was in danger at the instance of members of a political party. It is stated that therefore they could not comply with the direction contained in the order dated 25th March, 2009. I do not think that the pendency of another case would make it impossible for the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer as per the direction contained in the order dated 25th March, 2009. No grounds are made out for invoking the jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a second occasion. The Bail Application lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj