This is an application filed by the first accused in Crime No.71/2014 of Vellikulangara police station for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 20.1.2014 at about 9 am, accused three in numbers criminally trespassed into the residential house of the defacto complainant and enquired about her son and outraged her modesty and inflicted injuries on her and threatened her and thereby by all of them have committed the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 354, 294 (b) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he is innocent of the same and in fact accused 2 and 3, who were also similarly placed as that of the petitioner, were granted anticipatory bail by this Court and they were released on bail later as well. Now the investigation is almost over. So he prayed for allowing the application.
4. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that this Court has earlier rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail and thereafter he did not surrender. So he is not entitled to get the relief.
5. Heard both sides.
It is seen from the records that a crime was registered as Crime No.71/2014 of Vellikulangara police station on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant against the present petitioner and two others alleging the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 354, 294 (b) and 506(i) of the Indian penal Code. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner along with accused 2 and 3 moved this Court for anticipatory bail as B.A.No.1909/2014 and this Court by Annexure A order dated 19.3.2014 allowed the prayer in respect of accused 2 and 3 but disallowed the prayer in respect of the present petitioner. In spite that, the petitioner has not surrendered either before the investigating officer or before the court. The attitude of the persons, who have not surrendered before the court or before the investigating officer after the dismissal of their anticipatory bail application coming with an application for anticipatory bail later on the ground that major portion of the investigation is over cannot be encouraged. So considering the circumstances, this Court feels that it is not a fit case where the power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked in favour of the petitioner in the circumstances mentioned above to grant anticipatory bail in a case like this and the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail and the application is liable to be rejected. But the counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case the petitioner surrenders before the court below, a direction may be issued to the court below to consider and dispose of the bail application on the date of filing itself.
So, the application is rejected. If the petitioner surrenders before the concerned Magistrate court and moves for regular bail, then the learned Magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the bail application after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor of that court in accordance with law as far as possible on the same date itself.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge