IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1409 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.162/2010 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ SANTHOSH, UDAYINVILA VEEDU, ABHILASH JUNCTION, PULIYILA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1409 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime No.162/2010 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143,147, 148, 452, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 12/03/2010, the following order was passed; “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 18.3.2010 and 19.3.2010. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the order before B.A. No. 1409 / 2010 2 the investigating officer. Post on 25.3.2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.162 of 2010 of Kundara Police Station.” 4. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has not complied with the direction contained in the order dated 12/03/2010. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the direction contained in the order dated 12/3/2010, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm