IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3535 of 2007(F) ------------------------------------- [AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/11/2007 IN CRL.M.C. NO.2156/2007 OF THE SESSIONS COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM] ......... PETITIONER: ------------------- V.Y.SREEKUMAR, N.V.BUNGLOW, VALIYAVAZHI, KEZHAROOR VILLAGE, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.ANILKUMAR, S/O.MRITHYUNJAYA PANICKER, PRASANTH VILASOM, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C NO. 3535 of 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 04th day of January, 2011 ORDER The petitioner is the victim/injured in Crime No. 165/2007. By Annexure K order, the Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, granted anticipatory bail to the 2nd respondent who is the 10th accused, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is seeking an order to quash Annexure K order, this petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexure K order is dated 07.11.2007. At this long distance of time, I find no reason to interfere with the said order. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent is having a criminal back ground and attempted to murder the petitioner even on earlier three occasions and one of the case is crime number 84/2007. In that case, bail CRL.M.C NO. 3535 of 2007 2 was granted on condition that the 2nd respondent shall not commit any sort of crime. It is violating the condition in the earlier orders granting bail, the offence in crime 165/07 was committed. In the event any of the conditions in the earlier bail order was violated by the 2nd respondent, the remedy open to the petitioner is to move the Court which granted bail to cancel the same. I find no good reasons to interfere at this stage with the order impugned. Accordingly, Crl.M.C. is dismissed. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. rkc