IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 8031 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 434/07 OF KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED --------------------------------------- K.I.SHAJIMON @ SAJIMON, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. ISMAIL, KATTUPARAYIL HOUSE, EDAKKUNNAM, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 8031 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Second application for anticipatory bail. The earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as per order dt.30.11.2007 in B.A.No. 7357 of 2007. That order has not been challenged. The same has become final. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court again with an application for anticipatory bail and in these circumstances it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner to show the change in circumstance, if any, to justify the renewed prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner relies only on one circumstance. He relies on Annex.A6, which is a copy of a certificate issued by Highrange Hospital, which shows that at 7.30 p.m. the victim had gone to the said hospital with an injury on the left hand. The alleged incident had taken place at about 9 p.m. allegedly and it is contended that the injury must have been suffered by the victim prior to the alleged incident in this case. B.A.No. 8031 of 2007 2 3. I do not reckon that as a sufficient circumstance to consider the application for anticipatory bail afresh. Annex.A6 by itself cannot persuade this Court to jump to the conclusion that the injury suffered by the victim was not suffered in the incident that took place, in respect of which the F.I.R. has been filed. Certainly the Investigators, who now have knowledge about this contention, will have to cross check the details. 4. I am satisfied that this second application for anticipatory bail does not deserve favourable consideration. The petitioner must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. Needless to say that different considerations would apply when the court considers application for regular bail than when application for anticipatory bail are considered. It is open for the petitioner to raise all his contentions when the application for regular bail is considered by the court concerned. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) tm Judge B.A.No. 8031 of 2007 3