IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7807 of 2009() ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.5997/2009 CRIME NO.1187/2009 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- ANAS, SON OF ABDUL SALAM, AJEENA MANZIL, MUTHANA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY SRI.NIYAS A.SALAM RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7807 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner had filed B.A. No. 5997/2009 praying for anticipatory bail in respect of the same crime. That Bail Application was dismissed by the order dated 20/10/2009. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 20/10/2009 is extracted below: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.1187 of 2009 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: On 24.5.2009, a customer of Kalyan Silks parked his vehicle in the parking area of Kalyan Silks. The key was handed over to the person in charge at B.A. No. 7807 /2009 2 Kalyan Silks. The allegation is that after the customer went inside the shop, the first accused, who is an employee in Kalyan Silks, made available another token in respect of the car and handed over the same to accused Nos.2 to 5. Accused Nos.2 to 5 produced the token in the counter and got the key of the vehicle. They drove away the car. It is also alleged that accused Nos.2 to 5 came to Ernakulam in a car belonging to a rent a car concern. The stereo recorder available in the car which was taken from Kalyan Silks was removed and sold by accused Nos.2 to 5 and they paid the amount to the rent a car concern. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the accused persons, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the B.A. No. 7807 /2009 3 proper investigation of the case. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.” There is no change of circumstance or any other circumstance warranting interference in the second application for anticipatory bail. The only ground stated in the Bail Application is that the wedding of the petitioner's sister was scheduled to be held on 2/01/2010. That date is over and therefore, there is no other reason available for considering the second application. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm