IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 103 of 2009() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.6908/2008 Dated 17/11/2008 .................... (CRIME NO.1327/2006 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ AJAYAN, S/O. RAJU, AGED 30 YEARS, AJAYA MANDIRAM, IRUMPANANGAD P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 103 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 294(b), 326 and 307 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner went to a bar and after consuming liquor, he had created problems in the bar. De facto complainant who is a cashier in the bar informed the police and petitioner and others were removed by the police. They were warned and sent off. Because of this incident, petitioner had enmity towards de facto complainant and on the next day he drove a vehicle towards de facto complainant and hit him with intention to commit murder. De facto complainant sustained serious injuries, including fracture. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent. As per the allegations made, six persons were talking in a group and petitioner hit the car only against de facto complainant. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. BA 109/09 -2- 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there was a definite motive for commission of offence. The manner in which the offence is committed is serious. De facto complainant sustained serious injuries. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. After hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the nature of allegations made and the manner in which the offence was committed, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Crime was registered as early as on 26-12-2006 and petitioner was not available for investigation so far, even after expiry of two years of the incident. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since on the facts in this case, this BA 109/09 -3- Court ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in any subsequent anticipatory bail application will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.