IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6719 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.4960/2009 Dated 29/09/2009. CRIME NO.602/2008 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER (S)/3RD ACCUSED -------------------- M. ANBURAJ, S/O. MADASAMY, DOOR NO. 6-2-23, NAGALAPURAM, SEVUGAMPATTY, NILAKOTTAI,DINDIGUL, TAMILNADU. BY ADV. MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6719 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.602/2009 of Kannur Town Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 379, 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner had filed B.A. No.4960/2009 for the same relief as prayed for in the present Bail Application. B.A. No.4960/2009 was dismissed by the order dated 29/9/2009. For the sake of convenience, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order in B.A. No.4960/2009 are extracted below: “3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He had received the stolen property, namely, a Tata Indica Car. It is stated that the petitioner used to B.A. No. 6719/2009 2 purchase totally damaged vehicles in accident and using the registration certificates and other documents of those vehicles, the stolen vehicles would be dealt with after changing the engine number and chassis number of the stolen vehicles. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where Anticipatory Bail can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ” 4. The petitioner submits that anticipatory bail was refused earlier, apparently accepting the case put forward by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is a habitual offender. The petitioner submits that he is not involved in any case and therefore, the ground on which anticipatory bail was refused does not exist. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions that the petitioner is involved in a gang, who B.A. No. 6719/2009 3 regularly indulges in such criminal activities. 6. Even assuming that the petitioner is not a habitual offender, that is not a ground for granting anticipatory bail to him. B.A.No.4960/2009 was dismissed not on the sole ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Even if the facts of the present case alone are taken note of, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get anticipatory bail. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not think that fresh consideration of the matter is required. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the facts and circumstances of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm