IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1175 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 3/03 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ---------------------------------------- P.ABOOBACKER, S/O. K.V.ABDULLA, VALLIKKALAKATH HOUSE, P.O.VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBCID, KOZHIKODE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1175 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging the offence punishable, inter alia, under Section 468 I.P.C. The petitioner had come to this Court earlier with an application for anticipatory bail and this Court by order dt. 8.7.2003 in B.A. 527 OF 2003 had dismissed the application observing that the petitioner must surrender and seek regular bail. The petitioner has not surrendered or sought regular bail so far. He has come to this Court again with a renewed prayer for anticipatory bail. 2. The application is opposed by the learned Prosecutor. He submits that there are no reasons to invoke the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. at this stage. 3. It is trite that a person, whose application for anticipatory bail has once been rejected, must show satisfactory reasons to persuade the court to once again entertain the application for anticipatory bail. Called upon to explain the B.A.No. 1175 of 2008 2 change of circumstance, if any, the learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that substantial period has elapsed after the earlier order. The petitioner is sick also, it is submitted. 4. The learned Prosecutor points out that though there has been lapse of time, investigation has not revealed any circumstance favourable to the accused, which would justify the renewed prayer for invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. now. I am satisfied that no change of circumstances have been shown to exist which can persuade me to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. now. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) tm Judge B.A.No. 1175 of 2008 3