IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3520 of 2010()
1. RAMESH @ KANNAN, S/O.KARTHIKEYAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :07/09/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3520 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioner was the fifth accused in Crime Nos.
239/CR/01 and 95/CR/92 of CBCID CFS,
Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offences
under Sections 120B and 489B and C read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Final report
submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure was taken cognizance as S.C.No.501/2006.
As petitioner failed to appear subsequently and the
sureties failed to produce him, bail granted to the
petitioner was cancelled and proceedings were
initiated under Section 446 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and penalty was imposed on the sureties.
The case against the petitioner was split up.
Later, petitioner appeared and the case was re-
filed as S.C.No.582/2009. Petitioner was released
on bail. Again, petitioner failed to appear and
when the sureties were directed to produce the
CRMC 3520/10 2
petitioner, he filed an application along with the
medical certificate. Public Prosecutor objected to
the application, disputing the medical certificate.
Learned Sessions Judge issued summons to the Doctor
and examined the Doctor, who gave evidence that
signature of the person, who approached for the
medical certificate, is different from the
signature shown in the vakalath. Learned Sessions
Judge reported that the person, who appeared before
the doctor to obtain the medical certificate, is
not the petitioner. Learned Sessions Judge,
thereafter, cancelled the bail and issued non
bailable warrant. This petition is filed under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to direct
the Sessions Judge to release the petitioner on
bail on his surrender and moving an application for
bail.
2. As it was represented that 12 witnesses were
examined in S.C.No.501/2006 and trial of S.C.No.
582/2009 was directed with S.C.No.501/2006 and
CRMC 3520/10 3
petitioner is being asked to cross-examine the
witnesses from PW12 onwards, a report was called
for from the learned Sessions Judge as to how many
witnesses have already been examined for the
prosecution in S.C.No.501/2006, has the trial in
S.C.No.582/2009 been started and if so, what is the
stage and if 11 prosecution witnesses were examined
in S.C.No.501/2006, how could S.C.No.582/2009 be
posted along with S.C.No.501/2006. Report of the
learned Sessions Judge shows that S.C.No.582/2009
is the split up case of S.C.No.501/2006 and 9
witnesses were examined in S.C.No.501/2006 and as
petitioner appeared, trial was stopped and S.C.No.
501/2006 is rescheduled. Learned Sessions Judge
reported that it was in view of the evidence of the
doctor, non bailable warrant was issued to the
petitioner.
3. If trial of S.C.No.501/2006 was commenced
and some of the witnesses were already examined,
S.C.No.582/2009 cannot be tried along with S.C.No.
CRMC 3520/10 4
501/2006, unless all the witnesses already examined
are again examined in the presence of the
petitioner. I do not find that learned Sessions
Judge would insist the petitioner to cross-examine
the witnesses from PW12 onwards as has been
represented. The report of the learned Sessions
Judge shows that petitioner failed to appear, even
though he was released on bail after proceedings
were initiated under Section 446 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and penalty was imposed on the
sureties. In such circumstances, I do not find that
a direction is to be issued to the Sessions Judge
to release the petitioner on bail as sought for. It
is up to the learned Sessions Judge to consider the
application for bail as and when petitioner appears
and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
It is also made clear that if presence of the
petitioner is procured and S.C.No.582/2009 is to be
tried with S.C.No.501/2006, learned Sessions Judge
must recall all the witnesses so far examined and
CRMC 3520/10 5
examine them in the presence of the petitioner
granting liberty to cross-examine them. If presence
of the petitioner cannot be procured, trial of
S.C.No.501/2006 shall be conducted separately and
petitioner shall be tried separately.
Petition is disposed accordingly.
7th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv