IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2751 of 2010()
1. MATHEW K.GOERGE @ MANOJ,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.MINI.R.MENON
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :25/05/2010
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2751 of 2010
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this 25th day of May, 2010.
ORDER
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences according to the evidence under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 326, 307 r/w 149 IPC. According
to prosecution, petitioner (A8) along with other accused, formed
into an unlawful assembly and committed various offences by
assaulting de facto complainant with sword stick, iron rod etc.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is
not involved in the offence and no overt act is alleged against him.
Other accused are arrested and released on bail, it is submitted.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that, as per
Annexure A3, the application filed by petitioner for anticipatory bail
was rejected on 15.3.2010. There is no change of circumstance
and, on the facts of this case, it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail
to petitioner, it is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner’s case was
considered at length in the earlier application for anticipatory bail
[B.A.No.2751/2010] 2
and in Annexure-A3 order, it was observed as follows:
“11. In so far as accused No.8 is concerned, I
am of the view that he is not entitled to the
discretionary relief under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. As stated earlier,
there are enough materials, prima facie, to come
to the conclusion that accused No.8 is also
involved in the offence. The offence alleged
against accused No.8 is is serious in nature. the
victim had sustained very severe injuries. He had
to undergo an operation.”
6. The earlier application filed by petitioner was dismissed on
15.3.2010 and petitioner has chosen to file an application again,
though this Court specifically observed that petitioner is not
entitled to discretionary relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. There
is absolutely no reason to come to a different view in this
application. Granting of regular bail to co-accused is not a ground
to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. Petitioner is bound to
surrender and co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the
following order is passed:
(1) Petitioner shall surrender before Investigating
Officer forthwith and co-operate with the
investigation.
(2) Whether petitioner surrenders or not, police is at
[B.A.No.2751/2010] 3
liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance
with law.
(3) No further application for anticipatory bail by
petitioner will be entertained by this Court.
Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Krs.