IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 486 of 2008() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.7959/2007 Dated 04/01/2008 CRIME NO.528/07 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED IN CR.528/07 OF BEKAL POLIC ------------------------------------------------------------------- KAPPIL MOHAMMED PASHA, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KAPPIL ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT GREEN VILLA, BEKAL P.O., KASARAGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL SRI.N.K.POULOSEKUTTY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA (REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BEKAL POLICE STATION-CRIME NO. 528/2007 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.486 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 ORDER This is the second application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner along with some others had come to this Court claiming identical relief earlier and by a detailed order dated 4.1.08 in B.A.No.7959 of 2007, this Court had dismissed the said petition. The petitioner who was the 1st petitioner in that petition has now come before this Court again with a renewed request of anticipatory bail. 2. By order dated 04.01.08 in B.A.No.7959 of 2007, the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail was dismissed. That order has become final without challenge. The petitioner applies again for grant of anticipatory bail. It is for the petitioner to show this Court the change of circumstance which had taken place subsequent to 4.1.08 to justify a fresh favourable consideration of this bail application. 3. What are the changes in circumstances ? Except to say that the investigation has proceeded further with lapse of time, no specific grounds are urged. However, the learned B.A.No.486 of 2008 2 counsel for the petitioner submits that on the earlier occasion, it was not brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is ill, sick and could not be assumed to take part in an incident like the instant one. 4. The application is opposed. I have already considered all the relevant inputs. Earlier no specific submission about the illness etc. was made. Some documents have been produced at this stage to show that the petitioner suffers from ailment. I am not satisfied that there is any change of circumstance to justify a renewed different consideration of the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The elapse of time does not also justify a renewed consideration of the application for anticipatory bail nothing having been brought out in favour of the petitioner in the course of such investigation. 5. I am satisfied that this application for anticipatory bail deserves to be dismissed. This bail application is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-