IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5668 of 2008()
1. JOSEPH @ JOSE, S/O. JOHNY ULAHANNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DY.S.P CRIME BRANCH,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALAE, REP. BY
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :22/09/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Bail Appl.No. 5668 of 2008
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008.
ORDER
Petition for bail.
2. Petitioner is the 9th accused. The offences alleged
against him are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 307,
302, 124 and 120(B) of IPC. He was granted bail by this Court
and he executed bond also, before the lower court and released
on bail on 15.12.2006. He failed to appear thereafter and was
arrested on 29.3.2008 and produced before the court. On
7.4.2008, he was produced on production warrant in the case. His
bail application was rejected and he was remanded.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the police has not taken any steps to cancel the bail, though, as
per the order passed by this Court in B.A.No.7491 of 2006, the
bail granted to the petitioner is liable to be cancelled, if the
petitioner commits any offence while on bail. The court has
committed a mistake in cancelling the bail without any steps
[B.A.No.5668/08] 2
being taken for cancellation and remanding the petitioner, it is
submitted.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application
and submitted that the petitioner had absconded after his release
on bail on execution of the bond and he could be arrested only
after two years. In the the meantime, he also committed various
other offences, in breach of the condition imposed by this Court in
the bail order. There was a condition that the petitioner shall not
commit any offence while on bail and it was ordered that if the
petitioner commits breach of any of the condition, bail granted to
him shall be liable to be cancelled. Therefore, the petitioner
having committed other offences, while on bail, the court below
has rightly cancelled the bond and the petitioner was arrested on
29.3.2008 and he was produced in this case, as per production
warrant on 7.4.2008. Therefore, the order dismissing the bail
application is only sustainable, it is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that there is
absolutely no reason to interfere with the order passed by the
lower court. The petitioner has abused the liberty granted to
him, and he also acted in breach of the terms of the bond
[B.A.No.5668/08] 3
executed by him and he absconded for a long time. The court
below rightly rejected the bail and the arguments to the contrary
are rejected.
Petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Krs.
