IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1934 of 2010()
1. RIJU RAJ, S/O.K.RAJENDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :02/06/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
----------------------------------------------
Bail Application No.1934 of 2010
----------------------------------------------
Dated 2nd June, 2010.
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence is under Section 498A read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is first
accused in the crime. This petition was filed on 24.3.2010.
During the pendency of this petition, during vacation,
petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code and the following order is passed by this
Court on 23.4.2010, in Crl.M.C.No.1343/2010 :
“2. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that investigation is almost over
now. Since the petitioner is willing to
surrender and face trial, practically no purpose
will be served by sending the petitioner to jail.
3. The petitioner is directed to
surrender before the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram on or
before 30.6.2010. On such surrender the
learned Magistrate may allow the petitioner to
go on bail. While releasing the petitioner on
bail the learned Magistrate may impose
suitable normal conditions”.
BA NO.1934/10 2
3. Learned counsel for defacto complainant
submitted that petitioner has managed to get an order of
bail in a petition filed under Section 482 and the conduct of
petitioner is not desirable. Petitioner was already released
on bail, as per the order referred above, while petition for
anticipatory bail was pending before this court. It was also
pointed out that though defacto complainant appeared in
this bail application and she has raised serious contentions,
she was not made a party to the petition under Section 482
of the Criminal Procedure Code. Even pendency of
anticipatory bail was not brought to court, but it was
deliberately suppressed by petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
petitioner may be allowed to withdraw this petition, since
petitioner applied for cancellation of bail.
5. On hearing both sides, though I find that
practically no purpose will be served in proceeding with this
petition, on considering the various facts and circumstances
BA NO.1934/10 3
discussed above, to secure ends of justice, petitioner must
be directed to pay cost to the Kerala High Court Legal
Service Committee.
6. Hence, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn
and petitioner shall deposit Rs.1,000/- to the Kerala High
Court Legal Service Committee, within two weeks from
today.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
tgs