IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2422 of 2010()
1. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. KUTTAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
2. VENUKUMAR, S/O. KUTTAN PILLAI,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :16/06/2010
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 2422 of 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b) and 324
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to
prosecution, petitioners along with other accused attacked de
facto complainant with iron rod and stick. First accused used an
iron rod and inflicted a fracture to the de facto complainant. The
second accused attacked de facto complainant with stick.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that this is the third
application for anticipatory bail. I have gone through both the
earlier orders in B.A. nos. 7555/2009 and 1190/2010. Very
detailed orders are passed in both the applications filed by
petitioner for anticipatory bail. This court, after considering all the
relevant aspects, found that the discretionary jurisdiction under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised
in favour of persons, who are regularly indulging in criminal
activities. Accused are involved in several other cases and serious
offences are alleged against them. This court also held that if
B.A. No. 2422 of 2010 2
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely
affect proper investigation of the case and that petitioners are
not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. In the second Bail Application for anticipatory bail also
the court repeatedly held that petitioners are not entitled to the
discretionary remedy under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, after considering the various aspects relating to the
case.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that there is
absolutely no reason why I should come to a different finding.
The incident happened more than 6 months ago, on 06.12.2009
and this court had already taken a view that petitioners
interrogation is required. But the petitioners have not so far
surrendered. Instead they repeatedly filed anticipatory bails. This
is the third application. No exceptional circumstances are pointed
out to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are evading law, despite
dismissal of earlier applications. Hence the following order is
passed:
B.A. No. 2422 of 2010 3
1. petitioners shall surrender before the
investigating officer without any delay and
co-operate with the investigation.
2. Whether they surrender or not, police is
at liberty to arrest and proceed, in
accordance with law.
3. If the petitioners have any grievance
against anticipatory bail orders they may
approach the appropriate forum for relief,
but no further application for anticipatory
bail in the same crime by the petitioners
shall be entertained by this Court,
hereafter.
This petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE
ln