IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7576 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2350/2008 of ADDL.SESSN.COURT (ADHOC-II)KASARAGODE (CRIME NO.307/2008 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED: ---------------------------- 1. SHAIKUNHI, S/O.SEEDI, R/AT SAMEER MANZIL KATTA BAZAR, BANGRA MANJESHWAR, POST MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. ASHRAF, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI, ELECTRICIAN, R/AT BANGRA MANJESHWAR, HAYYA ROAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No.7576 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under section 143, 147, 341, 342, 332 read with section 149 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners (A1 and A6 along with four other persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and wrongfully confined Asst. Executive Engineer and Overseer and assaulted Sub Engineer. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that other accused are granted bail and hence this petition is filed. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on the facts of this case, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Another application for anticipatory bail by the petitioners was considered by this Court and it was dismissed as per order dated 26.11.2008 in B.A.No.7192 of 2008. There is absolutely no ground to review the order passed. No special circumstance is pointed to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. The crime is registered as early as on 1.11.2008 and the petitioners are required for interrogation. On hearing both sides, I find that contentions of the petitioners were considered by this Court in the earlier order passed in the application for anticipatory bail. The fact that other [B.A.No.7576/08] 2 accused are granted bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail. I do not find any reason to review the order passed by this Court in the earlier application for anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of the allegations, I am satisfied that this not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. I have already given such a finding in the earlier order. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, the police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by these petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.