Muralidharan vs Circle Inspector Of Police on 8 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1887 of 2008()



1. MURALIDHARAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :08/07/2008

 O R D E R
                         V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                     = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                      Crl.R.P.No.1887 of 2008
                    = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
               Dated this the 8th    day of July, 2008

                                ORDER

The three petitioners who are accused numbers 1,2 and 6 in

Crime No.392/2005 of Chittoor Police Station registered for an

offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act for

allegedly transporting 770 litres of spirit were granted bail by the

Sessions Court, Palakkad as per the orders passed on CMP

Nos.3407/05, 3845/05 and 291/2006. One of the bail conditions was

that they should report before the Investigating Officer on Mondays

and Thursdays. According to the petitioners they faithfully reported

before the Investigating Officer on every Mondays and Thursdays for

six months after which they discontinued the same on being told by

their counsel that since the charge sheet has already been filed before

the court, it may not be necessary for them to report before the

Investigating Officer. On 31.03.08, the Investigating Officer filed

CMP No.1175/2008 before the Sessions Court, seeking cancellation of

the bail granted to the petitioners on the ground that they had not

reported before the Police after six months of their enlargement on

bail. Upon notice of the said application, the petitioners again

resumed reporting before the Investigating Officer. Subsequently, on

Crl.R.P.No.1887 of 2008
2

14/5/08, the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail granted to the

petitioners on the ground that they had admittedly committed breach

of the bail condition regarding reporting before the Investigating

Officer and that the explanation offered by them was not bona fide.

2. After hearing both sides, I see no reason why the explanation

offered by the petitioner should not be accepted. Accordingly, the

impugned order is set aside and the petitioners shall stand enlarged

on bail as originally granted on the same bail bond and sureties and

subject to all the conditions imposed by the Sessions Judge including

the condition for reporting before the Investigating Officer on all

Mondays and Thursdays.

3. The Investigating Officer shall file a statement before this

Court within 14 days from today as to why the investigation of this

case has not been completed even after the lapse of three years.

This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above.

Dated this the 8th day of July, 2008.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

sj

Hand over a copy of this order to the learned Public Prosecutor