IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 504 of 2008()
1. MUHAMMED KUNHI MUKKUNNOTH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :30/01/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.504 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations
in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under
Sections 308 and 324 r/w 149 I.P.C. The alleged incident took
place on 10.12.07. The petitioner along with some other co-
accused had come to this Court claiming anticipatory bail and this
Court by order dated 07.01.08 in B.A.No.8019 of 2007 had
dismissed the application for anticipatory bail so filed by the
petitioner and the other accused.
2. The petitioner has come to this Court again claiming
anticipatory bail. It is trite that when one application for
anticipatory bail was dismissed and the petitioner again
approaches this Court for the same relief, the petitioner must
show change of circumstances if any to justify the grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner by this Court in the second
application.
3. Except that some time has elapsed after the dismissal
of the earlier application for anticipatory bail, no other specific
B.A.No.504 of 2008 2
change of circumstances are brought to my notice. The learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that when the matter
came up for hearing on the previous occasion, certain very
important facts were omitted to bring to the notice of this Court.
4. What are those circumstances ? On 07.12.07, the
petitioner had complained about commission of offences, inter
alia, under Sections 341 and 427 against two named persons and
some others. The accused in that crime and the defacto
complainant in this crime do all belong to the same political party.
The petitioner was threatened to withdraw the allegations raised
in the crime registered on 08.12.07. He refused to do that. Only
because of that, the present allegations is raised against him in
this crime, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find no
circumstances which can persuade me to take a different view as
there has already been taken in the order dated 07.01.08. I do
stick to the view that the petitioner must surrender before the
Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek
regular bail in the ordinary course.
6. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed,
but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders
B.A.No.504 of 2008 3
before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and
applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor
in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to
pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-