IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2851 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO. 214/2010 0F KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION ..................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------- PRASANNAN @ UNNI, S/O.RAGHAVAN, PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTUMPURAM, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM 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 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 2851 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 16.2.2009 at about 9.40 P.M., petitioner attacked de facto complainant and his brother with a sword. They sustained injuries. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case. In the F.I. Statement, de facto complainant has not alleged any motive. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a second application for bail. The incident happened as early as on 16.02.2009 and more than a year lapsed. Petitioner has not co-operated with the investigation and he was absconding. The earlier application was dismissed as per order dated 05.04.2010 in B. A. 1571/2010 and this court held in para 4 of the order as follows: “Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injuries B.A. No. 2851 of 2010 2 sustained by the de facto complainant and his brother, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 5. On hearing both sides, I do not find any ground to come to a different finding. This court has already found that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the recovery of the weapon is not effected. I am also satisfied that the petitioner's interrogation is required for effective investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: i). Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. ii). Whether he surrenders or not police is at liberty to arrest and proceed in accordance with law. B.A. No. 2851 of 2010 3 iii). No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entertained. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln