High Court Kerala High Court

Sethu vs Station House Officer on 22 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sethu vs Station House Officer on 22 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 1051 of 2008()


1. SETHU, AGED 32 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. VIJI, AGED 27 YEARS,
3. SAJEEV P.C., AGED 24,
4. SAJEEV P.C., AGED 29 YEARS,
5. RATHEESH K.R., AGED 26 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.D.JOHNY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :22/02/2008

 O R D E R
                         R. BASANT, J.

          ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                    B.A. No. 1051 OF 2008
          ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
         Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008

                            O R D E R

This is the 2nd application for anticipatory bail filed

by the petitioners who had come to this Court earlier and

suffered the order dated 30.1.08 in BA.465/08. They have not

challenged the said order. They have not surrendered before

the Magistrate or the investigating officer as directed in that

order. They have again come to this Court with a prayer that

they may be granted anticipatory bail.

2. It is trite that the earlier order of anticipatory bail

having been dismissed, it is for the petitioners to show change

of circumstances, if any, to justify a different renewed

consideration of their application for anticipatory bail. Called

upon to explain the change of circumstances, if any, the

learned counsel for the petitioners only submits that accused

Nos.1, 2 and 8, who are co-accused, were arrested and were

BA.1051/08
: 2 :

granted regular bail by this Court. They were directed to be

released on bail with effect from a future date and there was a

direction that every endeavour must be made to complete the

investigation by that date. That order has not been produced

before me. I assume that such an order has been passed.

But even that order cannot be reckoned as sufficient change

of circumstances to justify a different renewed consideration

of the petitioners’ claim for anticipatory bail. The learned

Public Prosecutor submits that there is no change of

circumstances and the investigation conducted has not, in any

way, revealed any evidence favourable to the petitioners.

3. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this

petition only deserves to be dismissed. I do so.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
aks