Continuous mental health issues presented by the petitioner do not alter the facts of the case to justify granting anticipatory bail if previously denied based on severity of the alleged crime.

ORDER

This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973. An earlier application for pre-arrest bail was rejected by this Court and hence this is the second application.

2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1081/2022 of Pathanapuram Police Station, Kollam, alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 326 and Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. On 11.10.2022, this Court had rejected an application for anticipatory bail preferred by the petitioner as B.A.No.7301/2022. While dismissing the said application, this Court had taken note of the seriousness of the injuries as revealed from the wound certificate. The certificate mentioned fracture of the skull bone apart from other injuries on the defacto complainant.

4. Smt.Anjana Kannath, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is suffering from serious mental illness as is evident from Annexure A2 and Annexure A3 due to which petitioner ought to be released on anticipatory bail. Petitioner asserted that in the earlier application, this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court.

5. Perusal of Annexure A2 reveals that those documents are mere prescriptions for medicines relating to the year 2010 and that of February 2022, while Annexure A3 is a certificate dated 05.01.2023 stating that petitioner has been under treatment for mood disorders with psychotic disorder for the last 13 years and he needs regular medicines for preventing relapses.

6. Considering Annexure A2 and Annexure A3 documents that have been produced, I am not satisfied that the said documents can be treated as a change of circumstances for revisiting the earlier order rejecting anticipatory bail. Petitioner's alleged illness was known to him when the earlier application was filed. Hence it is not a change of circumstance warranting a reconsideration.

7. Further, the incident is alleged to have occurred on 01.09.2022 while the documents produced do not even indicate that the petitioner was suffering from a serious illness on the day of the incident. Thus much reliance cannot be placed on Annexure A2 and Annexure A3.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, I dismiss this bail application.

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM