IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7582 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.5815/2011 CRIME NO.545/2011 OF KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ---------------------------- SHAJI, KANNILETH, ARAKUZHI, MATTUKATTA, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/STATE ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. STATE PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.7582 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011 ORDER The petitioner filed Bail Appln.No.5815 of 2011 for anticipatory bail. That application was dismissed by a detailed order dated 28th July, 2011. The petitioner has filed the present bail application for the same relief which was prayed for in Bail Appln.No.5815 of 2011. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 28th July, 2011 is extracted below:- “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.545 of 2011 of Kattapana Police Station, Idukki District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 294(b), 353 and 332 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 11.7.2011, the revenue officials intercepted Bail Appln.No.7582/2011 : 2 : the lorry, bearing Registration No.KL 6D/6632, which was allegedly being used for illegally transporting sand. The de facto complainant, a member of the Sand Squad, was abused and attacked with a stick by the first accused. The revenue officials were pushed down by accused Nos.2 to 7 and they were prevented from discharging their official duties. The driver of the lorry escaped. It is alleged that when the lorry was about to be removed, the accused persons came to the spot and attacked the revenue officials, as directed by the driver of the lorry. The lorry in which the sand was illegally transported could not be seized by the revenue officials as the accused persons forcibly took away the lorry. It is alleged that the Revenue officials were forcibly pulled down from the lorry and they were physically assaulted. The driver of the lorry in which the sand was removed was apprehended by the Revenue officials and he was made to sit in the vehicle belonging to the Revenue Department, but he escaped from the said vehicle. It is also specifically alleged against the first accused that he drove away the lorry in which the sand was illegally transported. Bail Appln.No.7582/2011 : 3 : 4. From the facts narrated above, it can be seen that the discretionary relief under Article 438 cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. In a case of this nature, I am of the view that anticipatory bail cannot be granted. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.” There is no justification for the petitioner to move for anticipatory bail again. For the reasons stated in the order dated 28th July, 2011, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief of anticipatory bail. The bail application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj