IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 255 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.69/2008 OF KAINADY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- RAJEESH, S/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 24 YEARS, PAKIDIYEL HOUSE, MALAKUNNAM KARA, KURICHY, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAINADY,THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 255 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.7 in Crime No.69/2008 of Kainady Police Station, Kottayam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 427, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 12/03/2010, the following order was passed; “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 18th and 19th March, 2010. Post on 25/03/2010. B.A. No. 255/2010 2 It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.69 of 2008 of Kainady Police Station, Kottayam. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer.” 4. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has not complied with the direction contained in the order dated 12/03/2010. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the direction contained in the order dated 12/3/2010, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm