IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5275 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CP.54/2007 of J.M.F.C.-III,TRIVANDRUM CRIME NO. 195/2006 OF CONTONMENT POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- PRASANTH, S/O. SUKUMARAN, TC 29/1699(1), MRA 20, KOVIL ROAD, PUNNUPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5275 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 O R D E R Apprehending arrest in Crime No.195/2006 of Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that now the matter is pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class- III, Thiruvananthapuram as C.P. No.54/2007. 4. The petitioner filed Crl.M.C.No.1903/2008 before the learned Sessions Judge praying for anticipatory bail. That application was dismissed holding that the petitioner can very well surrender before the Magistrate's court concerned and move for regular bail. After noticing that the petitioner was absconding during the investigation stage and that he was not co-operating with the investigation, the learned Sessions Judge held that there B.A. No. 5275 /2009 2 are no compelling circumstances to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. The final report having been filed by the investigating officer, the petitioner is free to move the trial court for regular bail. It is not necessary to apply for anticipatory bail, as there would be no move for arresting the petitioner by the investigating officer. The apprehension of arrest voiced by the petitioner is therefore not reasonable, as the investigating officer is not going to arrest the petitioner except on the basis of a warrant that may be issued by the court. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is legal and proper. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm