IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6411 of 2009() -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.5482/2009 CRIME NO. 248/2009 OF WADAKKANCERRY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. VIJEESH, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. VASU, PAZHAMBALATHU HOUSE, AKKAMPADAM DESOM, WADAKKANCERRY. 2. ANANDAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUNNI, KOLLAVARATHU HOUSE, KODUMBU DESOM, KANJIRANKODE. 3. MANOJ, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, AVISSERY HOUSE, KODUMBU DESOM, KANJIRANKODE. 4. VINEESH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. SANKARAN, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KODUMBU DESOM, KANJIRANKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR SMT.PREETHI K.PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT: ------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, WADAKKANCERRY POLICE STATION(CRIME NO. 248/2009) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6411 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 O R D E R The petitioners had filed Bail Application No. 5482/2009 for Anticipatory Bail, which was disposed of by the order dated 12.10.2009. The order reads as follows: “This is an application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos. 9, 8, 7 and 6 in Crime No.248/2009 of Wadakkanchery Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The date of occurrence was on 17.04.2009. The injured was admitted in the hospital. He was discharged from the hospital on 22.04.2009. He has sustained fracture of right Tibia and Fibula. The allegation is that the accused persons, fifteen in number, attacked the defacto complainant with deadly weapons. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injuries sustained and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under B.A. No. 6411 of 2009 2 Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the petitioners are granted Anticipatory Bail, it would cause adverse impact on the smooth conduct of the investigation. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.” 2. The same persons have filed this application for Anticipatory Bail on the 16th day of the order in Bail Application No. 5482/2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is change of circumstances as the investigation is completed and recoveries were effected. I do not think that the petitioners are justified in approaching this court again with the same prayer as made in Bail Application No. 5482/2009. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. ln