MOHAMMED HANEEFA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDAUNTED by the dismissal of the three earlier applications, the petitioner has moved this court for the fourth time seeking anticipatory bail. First among them was B.A. 9108 of 2011 which was dismissed by order dated 22.11.2011, wherein a direction was issued to the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer, who after interrogation was directed to produce the petitioner before the Magistrate concerned, so as to enable the petitioner to apply for regular bail, which the learned Magistrate was directed to dispose of as far as possible on the same date with due notice given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor. The petitioner did not comply with the said order. He thereafter filed B.A.10844 of 2011 which was dismissed by order dated 24.1.2012, wherein, after noticing the facts and contentions raised by the learned Public Prosecutor, this court found that for several reasons made mention of in the order, it will not be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It was also observed that the petitioner was at liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate concerned and move for bail. Observing so, the petition was dismissed. He did not comply with that order also. Instead, he filed B.A. 3869 of 2012 which this court, by an elaborate order, after referring to the entire contentions raised by the petitioner and the objections raised by the learned Public Prosecutor, dismissed the same by taking note of the gravity of the offence, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice and the likelihood of the petitioner indulging in similar offences and also the possibility of the petitioner threatening the witnesses and tampering with the evidence.

(2.) THE facts of the case and the involvement of the petitioner have been very succinctly referred to in the order dated 15.6.2012, while dismissing B.A. 3869 of 2012. It is therefore unnecessary to tread that path again. This court. while disposing of the said application, took note of the allegations in the earlier applications and found that the allegations in B.A.3869 of 2012 were substantially the same, and the fact that there was no change of circumstance pointed out weighed among the several other reasons with this court to dismiss the application.

(3.) TO understand the above contentions, a few facts are necessary. The victim in this case was initially arrested along with two other persons and was booked for the offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. As investigation progressed, shocking informations came to light and thereafter, various other offences were added and several persons were arrayed as accused persons. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, in the last week of July, 2011, had sexually assaulted the victim and thereby he was also liable to be arrayed as an accused. In fact, his rank is shown as the 52nd accused in the case.