IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2398 of 2010() ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.622/2010 Dated 10/02/2010. CRIME NO.351/2009 OF KANAKAKUNNU POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED NO.3 -------------------------------- PRAVEEN KUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, RETNABHAVANAM, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANAKAKUNNU POLICE STATION, HARIPPAD THR0UGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.2398 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This is a petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offeces are under sections 307, 326, 323, 506(i) r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution on 25.10.2009 petitioner (A3) along with two others attacked husband of defacto complainant with a sword stick and he sustained serious injury including fracture. He was admitted in hospital and treated. This is the second application for anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is long delay in registering the crime and it was not explained by the prosecution. No attack as alleged is made by petitioner. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor pointed out that though the incident happened as early as on 25.10.2009, even after eight months of incident, petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation. Annexure A1 order was passed as early as on 10.2.2009 and insisted to co-operating with the investigation, he has filed a second application for B.A. No.2398/10 2 anticipatory bail on 16.4.2010. 5. On going through the order in the earlier application for anticipatory bail, I find that this court had already observed that taking into account nature and gravity of offences and allegations made against petitioner and others, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and that petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief u/s.438. I do not find any ground to come to a different finding. Petitioners are bound to surrender before the police and co-operate with investigation. Hence the following order is passed: i) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with investigation. ii) Whether he surrenders or not police is at liberty to proceed against them in accordance with law. iii) No anticipatory bail application by the petitioner in his case will hereinafter entertained. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.