IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2422 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.1999/2009 OF KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT) ................ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. KUTTAN PILLAI, AGED 46 YEARS, RAJITHA BHAVAN, MARANAD, VETTIKAVALA, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. VENUKUMAR, S/O. KUTTAN PILLAI, AGED 44 YEARS, MELEVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MARANAD, VETTIKAVALA, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR, SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM. RESPONDENT/COMPAINANT: ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 2422 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b) and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners along with other accused attacked de facto complainant with iron rod and stick. First accused used an iron rod and inflicted a fracture to the de facto complainant. The second accused attacked de facto complainant with stick. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that this is the third application for anticipatory bail. I have gone through both the earlier orders in B.A. nos. 7555/2009 and 1190/2010. Very detailed orders are passed in both the applications filed by petitioner for anticipatory bail. This court, after considering all the relevant aspects, found that the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in favour of persons, who are regularly indulging in criminal activities. Accused are involved in several other cases and serious offences are alleged against them. This court also held that if B.A. No. 2422 of 2010 2 anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect proper investigation of the case and that petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. In the second Bail Application for anticipatory bail also the court repeatedly held that petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary remedy under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after considering the various aspects relating to the case. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that there is absolutely no reason why I should come to a different finding. The incident happened more than 6 months ago, on 06.12.2009 and this court had already taken a view that petitioners interrogation is required. But the petitioners have not so far surrendered. Instead they repeatedly filed anticipatory bails. This is the third application. No exceptional circumstances are pointed out to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are evading law, despite dismissal of earlier applications. Hence the following order is passed: B.A. No. 2422 of 2010 3 1. petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. 2. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest and proceed, in accordance with law. 3. If the petitioners have any grievance against anticipatory bail orders they may approach the appropriate forum for relief, but no further application for anticipatory bail in the same crime by the petitioners shall be entertained by this Court, hereafter. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln