IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7719 of 2009()
1. RAKESH @ KOYAKURU, S/O.VELAYUDHANKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :06/01/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 7719 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010
O R D E R
The petitioner had filed Bail Application No.7117/2009, which
was disposed of by the order dated 08.12.2009. For the sake of
convenience the order dated 08.12.2009 is extracted below:
“This is an application for bail under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
petitioner is accused No.3 in S.C. No. 774/2007 on
the file of the court of Additional Sessions Judge
(Fast Track No. II, Adhoc), Thrissur.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioner
are under Sections 341, 448, 326 and 307 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The date of occurrence was on
13/10/2006. The petitioner was arrested on
6/1/2007. The petitioner was later released on bail
before committal of the case to the Sessions
Court. After committal to the Sessions court, the
petitioner was released on bail on 10/4/2008. The
case was posted before the Sessions Court on
15/7/2008 for examination of the witnesses. The
B.A. No. 7719 of 2009 2
petitioner did not appear before the court.
Therefore, bail was cancelled and non-bailable
warrant was issued against the petitioner. The
petitioner was arrested in connection with
another case and on 1/10/2009, his arrest was
recorded in the present case. The petitioner
was produced before the court on production
warrant. The petitioner was remanded to
judicial custody. The petitioner moved an
application for bail before the Sessions Court,
which was dismissed by the order dated
1/10/2009.
4. Now the case stands posted to
15/12/2009 for examination of the witnesses.
The court below held that the petitioner is in
the habit of making himself scarce when the
case is posted for trial. The court below has
also stated in the order that 29 witnesses were
summoned and their examination could not be
conducted because of the absence of the
petitioner before the court. The petitioner was
absconding. It is alleged that the petitioner is
involved in other cases as well. The petitioner
got himself involved in other cases during this
B.A. No. 7719 of 2009 3
period. These facts would indicate that the
petitioner cannot be released on bail at the
stage when the examination of the witnesses is
to take place on 15/12/2009. The court was
fully justified in rejecting the application for
bail. I am also of the view that the petitioner is
not entitled to get bail in the facts and
circumstances mentioned above.
The Bail Application is accordingly
dismissed.”
2. It is submitted that the case is now scheduled for trial
before the Sessions Court from 28.05.2010 to 02.06.2010. The
learned counsel submits that in view of the change of
circumstance, the petitioner may be released on bail on
stringent conditions.
3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the view that the petitioner should be permitted to
move an application for bail before the Sessions Court. The
Sessions Court would be in a better position to take note of the
subsequent events and deal with the case more effectively.
B.A. No. 7719 of 2009 4
Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the learned
Sessions Judge, this Bail application is closed. If an application
for bail is filed, it shall be disposed of in accordance with law
and nothing mentioned above shall be treated as observations
in favour of or against the petitioner.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
ln