Praveen Kumar vs Unknown on 26 May, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2398 of 2010()


1. PRAVEEN KUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.A.CHACKO

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :26/05/2010

 O R D E R
                             K. HEMA, J
                          ----------------------
                      B.A.No.2398 OF 2010
                  -----------------------------------
            Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010

                              O R D E R

This is a petition for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offeces are under sections 307, 326, 323,

506(i) r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution on 25.10.2009

petitioner (A3) along with two others attacked husband of defacto

complainant with a sword stick and he sustained serious injury

including fracture. He was admitted in hospital and treated. This

is the second application for anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is

long delay in registering the crime and it was not explained by the

prosecution. No attack as alleged is made by petitioner.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor

pointed out that though the incident happened as early as on

25.10.2009, even after eight months of incident, petitioner is not

co-operating with the investigation. Annexure A1 order was

passed as early as on 10.2.2009 and insisted to co-operating with

the investigation, he has filed a second application for

B.A. No.2398/10 2

anticipatory bail on 16.4.2010.

5. On going through the order in the earlier application for

anticipatory bail, I find that this court had already observed that

taking into account nature and gravity of offences and allegations

made against petitioner and others, this is not a fit case to grant

anticipatory bail and that petitioner is not entitled to discretionary

relief u/s.438. I do not find any ground to come to a different

finding. Petitioners are bound to surrender before the police and

co-operate with investigation. Hence the following order is

passed:

i) Petitioners shall surrender before the
investigating officer and co-operate with
investigation.

ii) Whether he surrenders or not police is at liberty
to proceed against them in accordance with law.

iii) No anticipatory bail application by the petitioner
in his case will hereinafter entertained.

This petition is dismissed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

Sou.