IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6735 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 593/2009 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION ........................ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- 1. VISHNU GOPAL, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, ' THARA BHAVAN', KARAMKODE P.O., MEENADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. JEZIM, S/O.SHIHABUDEEN, JEZIM BUILDING, NEAR K.M.HOSPITAL, KALLAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SREEJITH, S/O.BABU, ARCHANA, CHERAVALLY, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT/STATE : -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009 ALONG WITH BA NO. 6963 OF 2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6735 & 6963 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009 O R D E R Bail Application No. 6735/2009 is filed by three persons of whom the third petitioner is Sreejith, S/o.Babu, Archana, Cheravally, Kayamkulam, Alappuzha. The application was filed on 02.11.2009 seeking Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 593/2009 of Pooyappally Police Station. 2. The same Sreejith has filed Bail Application No. 6963/2009 through another counsel on 19.11.2009. It is not known how the same person filed two applications at the same time before the same Court. It is specifically stated in B. A. 6963/2009 that the petitioner has not filed any other application before this court or any other Court for the same relief. 3. When the Bail Application No. 6735/2009 came up for hearing on 18.11.2009, the following order was passed: “It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the second petitioner Jezim is not an accused and that petitioners 1 and 3 are respectively accused Nos.3 and 4. B.A. No. 6735 & 6963 of 2009 2 Petitioners 1 and 3 are Engineering College Students. It is submitted that there was a clash between two groups of the Engineering College Students. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to petitioners 1 and 3 to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to petitioners 1 and 3 to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 25.11.2009 and 26.11.2009. Petitioners 1 and 3 shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer. Post on 1.12.1009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that petitioners 1 and 3 will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No. 593 of 2009 of Pooyappally Police Station, Kollam District. Have over copy to both sides. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the direction issued to petitioners 1 and 3 in Bail Application No.6735/2009 to appear before the investigating officer was not complied with by them. Therefore, the petitioners in Bail B.A. No. 6735 & 6963 of 2009 3 Application No.6735/2009 are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Bail Application No.6735/2009 is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Bail Application No.6963/2009 submits that the petitioner has not engaged any counsel other than him to file any application for Anticipatory Bail. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Bail Application No.6963/2009. The petitioner is accused No. 4 in Crime No. 593/2009 of Pooyappally Police Station. 7. The offence alleged against him and other accused are under Section 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 308 and 506(i) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the petitioner. Therefore, Bail Application No. 6963/2009 is liable to be dismissed. For the aforesaid reasons, I dismiss the Bail Application Nos. 6735/2009 and 6963/2009. B.A. No. 6735 & 6963 of 2009 4 Taking into account the fact that Sreejith is a student, I am not imposing any cost for having filed two Bail Applications at the same time before the High Court. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln