IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 853 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.221 OF 2007 OF CITY POLICE STATION, KANNUR : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 - 4 ---------------------------------------------- 1. R.ROOPENDER, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 24 YEARS, SREE DURGA, NALLUMUKKU, CHIRACKAL AMSOM, KANNUR. 2. GOKUL, S/O.KRISHNA KUMAR, AGED 18 YEARS, VANDOTHUM VEEDU, VARANDATHADINATHU, KANNUR. 3. VIJAY, S/O.SHANMUGHAM, AGED 18 YEARS, KANNUR AMSOM, AYIKKARA LAKSHMIPURAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY POLICE STATION, KANNUR, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.853 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008 ORDER Second application by the petitioners who are accused 2 to 4 in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. Earlier application filed by them was considered by this Court and by detailed order dated 13.12.07 in B.A.7638/07, the same was dismissed. The petitioners have not surrendered so far before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate. They have now come before the Court again with a renewed prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. Their application for anticipatory bail having once been dismissed and the same having not been challenged so far, It is for the petitioners to show change of circumstances if any which can justify the subsequent renewed prayer for anticipatory bail. Called upon to explain the change of circumstances if any, the learned counsel for the petitioner only reiterates the contentions that were raised earlier. It is further submitted that there has been passage of time of about 2 months after the date of the earlier order. B.A.No.853 of 2008 2 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that though a period of 2 months has elapsed from the date of the earlier order, no circumstances in favour of the petitioners have been revealed in the course of investigation. There are no circumstances whatsoever to justify the renewed prayer for anticipatory bail made by the petitioners. This petition may, in these circumstances, be dismissed, prays the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having heard the learned counsel and having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to agree that any circumstances exist justifying a renewed fresh and different consideration of the application for anticipatory bail. I need only mention that the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail and must choose to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate as already indicated in the previous order. 5. This bail application is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-