IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4124 of 2009 CRIME NO.236 OF 2008 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ACCUSED: ---------------------------- 1. M.RAHIM, S/O.MOIDU, K.P.HOUSE, NETTOOR P.O., KUNNOTH, THALASSERY -5. 2. ASHRAF, S/O.IBRAHIM, M.P.HOUSE, P.O.NETTOOR, KUNNOTH, THALASSERY. 3. SANEEJ, S/O.ALI, M.P.HOUSE, NETTOOR P.O., KUNNOOTH, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.SALIM V.S. RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SHO, KOOTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KOOTHUPARAMBA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 4124 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th August, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.4, 5 and 7 in Crime No.236 of 2008 of Kuthuparamba Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners and the other accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 367 and 506 (II) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the case diary. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter was settled between the de facto complainant and the accused. It is stated that Crl.M.C.No.4604 of 2008 was filed to quash the proceedings in the case on the ground of settlement of the dispute. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the de facto complainant did not appear before the investigating officer, as B.A. NO. 4124 OF 2009 :: 2 :: directed by the Court. Ultimately, that Criminal Miscellaneous Case was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh Criminal Miscellaneous Case, as and when the de facto complainant gets ready to comply with the direction. The order in Crl.M.C.No.4604 of 2008 is not produced by the petitioners. Even now the de facto complainant has not made himself available for complying with the direction made in Crl.M.C.No.4604 of 2008. On the other hand, the petitioners herein have filed this application for anticipatory bail. I do not think that the request of the petitioners for granting anticipatory bail can be entertained. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/