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. 7771 of 2008() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.111/2008 OF MURIKKASSRY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- JAFFAR, AGED 26 YEARS,S/O.SIDDIQUE, KANJAMADAKKAL HOUSE, THOPRAMKUDI.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IDUKKI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.(INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.111/08 OF MURIKKASSERY POLICE STATION) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 7771 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 376 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner committed rape of de facto complainant on 1.1.2006. 3. This is the second application for anticipatory bail. The crime was registered as early as on 17.6.2008. The earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as per order dated 26.9.2008 in B.A.No.4182 of 2008 by this Court. All the contentions raised by the petitioner were considered by this Court in the said order. Since there was some dispute which was to be settled by the Lok Adalat, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat to verify the veracity of the affidavit filed by de facto complainant and see whether the matter could be settled. The dispute could not be settled there and considering the various contentions, particularly, the submissions made for de facto complainant, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. There is no reason to come to a different finding. 4. A second application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable in law. Petitioner has not surrendered before the Magistrate court or before the investigating officer even after dismissal of the earlier bail application. More than four months elapsed after such dismissal. Hence, investigation could not gain any progress. Therefore, the following order is passed: [B.A.No.7771/08] 2 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith 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 the petitioner in this crime shall be entertained by this Court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.