IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7610 of 2008() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.409/2008 OF KANJIRAPALLI POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DIST. .......... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED -------------------- 1. C.K.SAJI, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, CHENCHERIL HOUSE, VIZHIKKATHODE, KOTTAYAM. 2. RAJESH, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, RAJESH BHAVAN VIZHIKKATHODE, KOTTAYAM. 3. BABU, S/O.SUKUMARA PILLAI, CHENCHERIL HOUSE, VIZHIKKATHODE, KOTTAYAM. 4. C.K.ANILKUMAR, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, CHENCHERIL HOUSE, VIZHIKKATHODE KOTTAYAM. 5. K.P.VIJAYAN, S/O.PADMANABHA PILLAI KATTUVETTICKAL HOUSE, PANACHAYAPALLY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBKLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7610 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 323, 274(b), 427 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners allegedly assaulted de facto complainant after forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and committed mischief also. They also committed robbery and one Sivan Pillai lost Rs.2,000/- and de facto complainant lost Rs.520/-. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is the second application for anticipatory bail and after considering the rival contentions, this Court had dismissed an application finding that taking into consideration the seriousness of the nature of the allegations made and the necessity for custodial interrogation. Hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. According to learned counsel for petitioners, it is not necessary that petitioners are arrested and they are prepared BA.7610/08 2 to co-operate with the investigation. Petitioners are from respectable family and if they are arrested, they will suffer irreparable injury and loss. The attempt is to sabotage the agitations organised by the action council against the illegal acquisition of property for the purpose of setting up a sold waste disposal plant. 5. On considering the rival contentions, I have dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by petitioners as early as on 26.11.2008 in B.A.No.6476 of 2008 (vide Annexure-8). On going through the order it is clear that I have considered all the contentions raised by petitioners at length. I have found that in the nature of allegations made and considering the fact that petitioners may be required for custodial interrogation, for the purpose of recovery of alleged stolen articles, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime was registered as early as on 4.10.2008 and petitioners have not co-operated with the investigation so far. Petitioners filed the application when they apprehended arrest on accusation of committing non bailable offence. Both those conditions existed when the earlier application was filed BA.7610/08 3 by petitioners and there is no change in those circumstances. I have given reasons also in the order dismissing the application and there is absolutely no reason to review the order. If anticipatory bail is granted, it will amount to review of the order which is not permissible in the light of Section 362 Cr.P.C. There is difference in application under Section 438 Cr.P.C and 437 Cr.P.C or 439 Cr.P.C. Repeated and successive filing of anticipatory bail application cannot be allowed in the light of Section 362 Cr.P.C. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.