IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3500 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.1768/2010 Dated 06/04/2010 .................... (CRIME NO.69/10 OF THE BADIYADUKA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD) PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED: --------------------------------- RAFEEQ P.M., S/O.K.MUHAMMED AGED 25 YEARS, P.M.HOUSE, CHANDRAMPARA, NEKRAJE VILLAGE, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT: STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BADIYADUKA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3500 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 153 A and 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 28.02.2010 at about 8 P.M., petitioner (A4) along with other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, with the common object for promoting enmity between two religious groups, committed various offences. They made certain statements which would create religious disharmony. De facto complainant was also beaten up with sticks by the accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is the 4th accused and he is innocent of the allegations made. He was working in an ice factory, which is situated close by. But on the date of occurrence, the factory was closed and he was not present at the scene. It is also submitted that accused Nos. 1,3,5 6 and 8 are granted anticipatory bail by this court as per B.A. No. 3500 of 2010 2 Annexure-A1 order. Hence, petitioner may also be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes this bail application and it is pointed out that this is a second application for bail. The early application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as per Annexure- A2 order by this court holding that there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through Annexures A1 and A2 orders, I find that there is absolutely no ground to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. In Anenxure-A2 order, I directed the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation, since weapon used for the offence is to be recovered and petitioner's interrogation is necessary for effecting recovery. The said order was passed as early as on 20.05.2010 and almost one month elapsed but he has not complied with the said order. Petitioner's name find a place in the F.I. Statement itself. 6. It is not correct to say that Annexure-A1 order passed on 06.04.2010 in B.A. No. 1768/2010 is an anticipatory bail order. In paragraph 3 of the order, another bench has B.A. No. 3500 of 2010 3 specifically held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. I also hold the same view. In paragraph-3, this court had directed accused to appear before the Magistrate Court concerned and file an application for regular bail. Considering various aspects, the following order is passed: 1. Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. 2. No further application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner in this crime shall be entertained by this Court. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln