IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2954 of 2008()
1. JOSEPH @ JOSE, S/O. JOHNY ULAHANNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DY.S.P CRIME BRANCH,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
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. 2954 of 2008
==========================
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008.
ORDER
The revision petitioner, who is the 6th accused in S.C. No.
885 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases),
Vadakara, was granted bail by this Court as per the order dated
12.12.2006 in B.A. No. 7491 of 2006. The offences alleged
against the petitioner and others are those punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 364, 395, 307, 302 and 427 r/w
Sections 149 and Section 120 B of IPC. While the petitioner was
on bail, the Sulthan Bathery police registered a case against him
under Section 225(B) IPC and Section 3 and 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act. The said case was registered as crime No. 231
of 2006. He again applied for bail before the trial court by filing
C.M.P. No. 607 of 2008. The said application was dismissed,
inter alia, holding that the petitioner had failed to comply with
the conditions imposed by this Court while he was enlarged on
bail and that he had abused the liberty granted to him. It is the
said order dated 05.08.2008 passed by the trial Judge which is
CRL.R.P. NO. 2954/2008 : 2:
assailed in this revision.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would
submit that the trial Judge had no jurisdiction to cancel the bail
order issued by this Court and that if the petitioner was guilty of
non-compliance of the bail conditions the maximum which that
court could do was to cancel the bail bond. I cannot agree with
the above submission. First of all, the court below has not
cancelled the bail order or the bail bond. The court has only
dismissed the petitioner’s application for bail. While doing so, the
court has also observed that the petitioner committed breach of
the bail conditions and misused the liberty granted to him by the
court. That cannot amount to cancellation of the bail order. The
remedy of the petitioner is to apply for fresh bail either before
the trial court or before a superior Court. I see no ground to
interfere with the impugned order.
This revision is accordingly dismissed.
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
CRL.R.P. NO. 2954/2008 : 3:
rv