IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4936 of 2009 CRIME NO.373 OF 2009 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.3 & 4: --------------------------------------- 1. SADHANANDAN NAIR, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, AGED 61,INDIRA NAGAR, PEROORCADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUSEELA DEVI,W/O.SADHANANDAN NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARYANAD POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHPURAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 4936 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 4 in Crime No.373 of 2009 of Aryanad Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 28.10.2009, the following order was passed: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9 AM on 5th and 6th November, 2009. Post on 12.11.2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders.” B.A. NO. 4936 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 4. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 14.12.2009, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the directions contained in the order dated 28.10.2009 were not fully complied with. This was disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners were directed to file an affidavit stating as to what transpired on 5th and 6th November, 2009. The affidavit is not filed so far. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the first petitioner (second accused) appeared before the investigating officer, as directed in the order dated 28.10.2009, on 6.11.2009, but he did not appear on 5.11.2009. It is also submitted that the second petitioner (fourth accused) did not comply with the order at all. Since the petitioners have not complied with the directions contained in the order dated 28.10.2009, they are not entitled to any discretionary relief. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/