IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7945 of 2008 -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.1046/08 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION) ...... PETITIONER/ 3RD ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ SHAIRAJ.E.A, S/O. ATHEM, AGED 21 YEARS, EXAMANPETTAMALAYIL HOUSE, EAST MARADI.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.C.A.MAJEED. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVA KUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 7945 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 332, 342, 506(1), 225B and 427 read with section 149 IPC. According to prosecution, de facto complainant who is a police constable was trying to arrest an accused in a case, while petitioner (A3) along with other accused formed into unlawful assembly and assaulted de facto complainant and deterred him from discharging his official duty and intimidated him and thereby committed various offences. 3. According to petitioner three persons came in a car and entered the Mosque by wearing chappels and tried to catch 1st accused under the cover of a warrant. This provoked the persons who were in the mosque and there was some push and pull. Mosque committee filed a private complaint against the defacto complainant and 2 other persons and a crime was also registered. In order to wriggle out of the liability, this complaint is filed. The petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made and the petitioner is only related to the first accused and hence, he was made an accused in this case, it is submitted. BA 7945/2008 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the incident occurred in the tea shop and not in the Mosque. The alleged incident in this case has no connectio with the incident stated in Annexure-I complaint. This Court has considered application for bail earlier and it was dismissed as per order in Annexure-A2 or order. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. On hearing both sides, the case of petitioner was considered by this Court and anticipatory bail application filed by him was dismissed as per order dated 27-11-2008 in B.A. no.6918/2008 after considering the rival contentions. I have also held that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, considering the serious nature of allegations made. I do not find any reason to come to a different finding. The 2nd application filed by Petitioner is not maintainable. The crime was registered on 15-8-2008 and in spite of about six months the petitioner has not surrendered before the court or before the Investigating Officer. 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 BA 7945/2008 3 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 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.