IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7595 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ (C.R.NO.578/2008 OF THE RANNY POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2: --------------------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS JOHN, S/O.M.T.YOHANNAN, MELEKKALAYIL HOUSE, MUNDUKOTTACKAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. RAKESH K.VIJAYAN, S/O.VIJAYAN, KARIMPINETHMELEMURIYIL, VAYALATHALA P.O. BY ADV. MR..ABRAHAM SAMSON RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALANCHERY POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7595 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 186, 279 and 308 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners, who are accused 1 and 2 were engaged in illegal sand mining and transportation. When they were transporting 20 sacks of river sand in a jeep, the police party tried to stop them, but they proceeded forward and threw gunny bags on the police and thereby committed various offences. They thereafter escaped and they could not be arrested. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the police has enmity towards petitioners. It is also submitted that it is improbable that 20 gunny bags which may contain 90 kg of river sand will be transported in a jeep, as alleged. Petitioners have not committed any offence and hence anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. BA.7595/08 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the nature of allegations made against petitioners is serious and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I do not find any special circumstance to invoke provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C. There is only bare assertion that police has enmity towards petitioners and that the alleged transportation is improbable. Such assertions cannot be acted upon. No circumstances are pointed out which may persuade this Court to invoke Section 438 Cr.P.C. Considering the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime is registered as early as on 29.11.2008 and petitioners are required for investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co- operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. BA.7595/08 3 (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since this Court has already ordered that considering the nature of allegations made that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any order to contrary in any subsequent application will amount to review this order, which is impermissible in law. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.