IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3022 of 2008()
1. SREELAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :29/08/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR , J.
==========================
Crl.R.P. No. 3022 of 2008
==========================
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008.
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the accused in S.C. No. 1144 of 2008
on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-I,
Thiruvananthapuram challenges the order dated 13.08.2008
passed by the said court cancelling the bail granted to him and
remanding him to the judicial custody till the examination of the
remaining witnesses are exhausted.
2. What prompted the trial court to cancel the bail was the
alleged formidable appearance of the petitioner in the dock and
the response of the de facto complainant examined as PW1 while
he was deposing before the court from the witness box. The
learned Judge felt that the witness was seeing in an embarrassing
situation and unable to answer the questions put to him by the
learned Public Prosecutor presumably on account of a fear
developed from the appearance of the accused in the dock.
According to the learned Judge, from the manner in which PW1
standing in the dock and answering the questions put to him
CRL.R.P. NO. 3022/2008 :2:
during the cross examination by the Public Prosecutor, the Judge
was convinced that the witness was put under threat which,
according to the Judge, was the reason for the witness started
prevaricating in the witness box resulting in he being declared
hostile when cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. The court
below would say that going by the prosecution story, the 1st
accused was a leader of goonda gang and PW1 was assaulted and
fisted with incise injuries and fracture consequent on his refusal
to join as a member of the said gang led by the accused. From
this, the court below observed that PW1, who is an innocent
person, had suffered worst form of brutality at the instance of the
accused and was standing in the witness box as a lamb and was
seen making efforts to escape from the courts on being afraid of
his life. This, according to the court below, showed that the
muscle power had one of the legal system and the victim was
forced to turn inherent to the prosecution.
There was no complaint either by the witness himself or by
the prosecutor or by the Investigating Officer that the accused or
any member of his gang was threatening the witness or any
CRL.R.P. NO. 3022/2008 :3:
member of his gang was intimidated the witness against deposing
in favour of the prosecution. There was also no petition filed
before the court to the effect that the accused had misused the
system given to him or abused the liberty granted to him. If it
occurred to the trial Judge that any witness deposing before the
court showed symptoms of fear, it was certainly open to the trial
Judge to intervene and show a reassuring gesture so as to allay
of fear in the minds of the witness and see that he was
comfortably placed in the witness box and was prepared to give
evidence fearlessly. In the absence of a complaint either made
by the witness or by any person from the prosecution side, the
learned Judge should not have suo motu cancelled the bail of the
accused. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is set
aside and the petitioner shall continue to be on bail on the same
bond as well as on the same sureties. This order, however, will
not preclude the court below from canceling the bail granted to
the petitioner and remanding him to custody in case there is any
written complaint from parties alleging that the revision
petitioner/accused is threatening the witness or influencing the
CRL.R.P. NO. 3022/2008 :4:
witness or attempting to meddle with the prosecution evidence.
This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above.
The petitioner shall be released from custody forthwith and
he shall continue to be on bail on the same bond and on the
same sureties executed earlier.
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
CRL.R.P. NO. 3022/2008 :5: