Repeated anticipatory bail applications without a change in circumstances can be considered an abuse of the court process.

ORDER :

This is the third application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, who is accused in crime No.27/2023 of Aloor police station, Thrissur.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. I have perused the case diary as such along with the report placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The prosecution case is that on 07.01.2023 at about 11 am, when the defacto complainant reached Muriyad, the accused herein wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and attempted to prod on his abdomen with intention to commit culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. Since the defacto complainant evaded, the same caused abrasion on the abdomen. Thereafter, the accused again stabbed the defacto complainant and the same caused deep injury on his right wrist. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 308 of IPC.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, who canvasses anticipatory bail for the third time, after dismissal of earlier bail applications, viz., B.A.No.269/2023 as per order dated 02.03.2023 and B.A.No.4416/2023 dated 21.07.2023, moved before the Apex Court and sought the relief of anticipatory bail. Annexure D is the order of the Apex Court dated 20.11.2023 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.12934/2023. The order of the Apex Court reads as under:

“After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the Special Leave Petition.

Permission granted.

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

The petitioner has prayed for and is granted two weeks' time to surrender and apply for regular bail which will be considered by the trial court on its own merits.”

6. Going by the order, it is discernible that the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition, after arguing for some time and sought two weeks' time to surrender and apply for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial court on merits. The prayer was allowed by the Apex Court.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Annexure B, produced along with this petition, offence under Section 325 of IPC has been deleted and Section 324 of IPC is added and the same is the change in circumstances.

8. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed grant of bail and pointed out that this petition is unwarranted and the same has been filed to avoid surrender within two weeks' time granted by the Apex Court as per order dated 20.11.2023. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that going by the nature of allegations dealt in detail in the previous orders, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail, since arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon are inevitable part of the investigation.

9. In fact, the earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed after hearing the defacto complainant also, as averred in paragraph 7 of the order in B.A.No.269/2023, which is as under:

“7. The learned Public Prosecutor also expressed the view of the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant pointing out the necessity of custodial interrogation to have recovery of weapon, while strongly opposing grant of anticipatory bail.

8. While addressing the rival contentions, I have perused the FIS and the FIR in this crime (Crime No.27/2023 of Aloor police station). In this crime, the specific allegation is that at 11 am on 07.01.2023, the accused herein reached Muriyad and wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and attempted to cause jab injury on his abdomen with intention to cause culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Since the defacto complainant evaded the attack, he sustained injuries on his right hand and injury on the abdomen.

9. The relevant records pertaining to this crime produced by the learned Public Prosecutor would contain the copy of wound certificate prepared at 1 pm on 07.01.2023 by the causality Medical Officer, Kodakara Santhi Ho