IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 953 of 2008() ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------- JAYASARAVANA BALAJI S/O.H.R.S. MUTHUKRISHNAN, DIRECTOR OF MADHAVAMANI AND KCT STEELS, NATTUKAL KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION, CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD. 3. C.LALAJI, S/O.K.CHELLAPPAN TYPE II, CI, MEDICAL COLLEGE QUARTERS VANDANAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 953 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.191/2007 of Kozhinjampara Police Station. A complaint was referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and it was accordingly that the said crime was registered. The crux of the allegations in the said complaint is that the accused person, 10 in number, had committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420 and 379 IPC inter alia, against the petitioner herein. The first accused came to this court with a prayer for anticipatory bail and by Annexure B order, subject to conditions, anticipatory bail was granted to the said accused(1st accused) who is the 3rd respondent herein. 2. The petitioner has come to this court now with a petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C with a prayer that the anticipatory bail granted is liable to be cancelled. 3. What is the reason? Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first accused has criminal antecedents and the Crl.M.C. No. 953 of 2008 2 police in Annexure C statement has accepted that the first accused is involved in identical cases. In these circumstances, the bail granted to the 3rd respondent/1st accused is liable to be cancelled, it is submitted. 4. I have gone through the nature of the allegations in Annexure A complaint. There is no specific allegation now that subsequent to the grant of bail, the liberty granted has been abused by the 3rd respondent. I have gone through the vague, general and non specific allegations raised in Annexure A. I am not persuaded in any of the view of the matter that the prosecution had committed any indiscretion in not opposing the bail application. I am not persuaded that powers under Section 439(b) deserves to be invoked to cancel the anticipatory bail already granted. 5. This petition is accordingly dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 953 of 2008 3 Crl.M.C. No. 953 of 2008 4 Crl.M.C. No. 953 of 2008 5