IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4123 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 761/2008 OF KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION PETITIONER --------------------------- AMBUJAKSHI @ AMMINY, W/O.KUNJIKUTTAN NAIR, AGED 60 YEARS, MULLASSERIL HOUSE KOZHIMALA KARA, AYYAPPANKOIL VILLAGE IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA RESPONDENT: ------------- S.I.OF POLICE KATTAPPANA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4123 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 O R D E R This is the second application for anticipatory bail. According to the prosecution, on 23-12-2007 at about 8.15 p.m. while the Sub Inspector of Police who is the defacto-complainant along with his colleagues were on patrol duty, the petitioner and the 1st accused were found holding jars and on seeing the police both of them abandoned the articles and flee from the scene. On examination of the contents of the jar, it was found that the article in the jar is arrack. Hence, a case was registered against the petitioner and another. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in the crime. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a woman and she is innocent of the allegations made. Hence, she may be granted anticipatory bail. This application is opposed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that earlier another anticipatory bail application was filed and it was dismissed and therefore, there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail. On hearing both sides and perusing the earlier order in the anticipatory bail application, I find that earlier application for anticipatory BA 4123/08 -2- bail was also opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor and this Court considered the rival contentions and after perusing also the contemporaneous records observed that the court was unable to find any features in the case which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. It was also observed that it is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. The above application was dismissed holding that if the petitioner appears before the 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. The said order was passed by this Court as early as on 25-1-2008 in B.A.No.286/2008. The petitioner did not appear before the learned Magistrate or apply for bail. She also did not appear before the Investigating Officer. Instead she filed a second application for anticipatory bail seeking the same relief. The incident occurred as early on 23-12-2007. More than 2 ½ years have elapsed. The petitioner did not surrender in spite of the observations made by this Court in the earlier order in the anticipatory bail application. BA 4123/08 -3- During the pendency of this application, a direction was issued to the petitioner to surrender before this Court and it was observed that this application will be considered only if the petitioner surrenders before this Court. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though instructions were given to the petitioner to surrender, she has not come to the court today. Hence, I am satisfied that the petitioner is a deliberate absconder who wants to flee from law and she may not be available for trial. The case is already protracted. The investigation could not be completed because of the absence of the petitioner. Taking all these facts into consideration, I find that no leniency nor discretion be extended in favour of the petitioner. The application has only to be dismissed and I do so. It is made clear that the police will be at liberty to arrest the petitioner at any time without delay. The application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.