IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2751 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.932/09 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION (S): PETITIONER ------------------------------ MATHEW K.GOERGE @ MANOJ, AGED YEARS, S/O. K.M.GEORGE, KUNNAKATTU HOUSE, KARAPPUZHA, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.MINI.R.MENON RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIOER -------------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STAION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 2751 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this 25th day of May, 2010. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences according to the evidence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 326, 307 r/w 149 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner (A8) along with other accused, formed into an unlawful assembly and committed various offences by assaulting de facto complainant with sword stick, iron rod etc. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is not involved in the offence and no overt act is alleged against him. Other accused are arrested and released on bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that, as per Annexure A3, the application filed by petitioner for anticipatory bail was rejected on 15.3.2010. There is no change of circumstance and, on the facts of this case, it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner's case was considered at length in the earlier application for anticipatory bail [B.A.No.2751/2010] 2 and in Annexure-A3 order, it was observed as follows: “11. In so far as accused No.8 is concerned, I am of the view that he is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As stated earlier, there are enough materials, prima facie, to come to the conclusion that accused No.8 is also involved in the offence. The offence alleged against accused No.8 is is serious in nature. the victim had sustained very severe injuries. He had to undergo an operation.” 6. The earlier application filed by petitioner was dismissed on 15.3.2010 and petitioner has chosen to file an application again, though this Court specifically observed that petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. There is absolutely no reason to come to a different view in this application. Granting of regular bail to co-accused is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. Petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before Investigating Officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. (2) Whether petitioner surrenders or not, police is at [B.A.No.2751/2010] 3 liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. (3) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.