IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 336 of 2009(D) ------------------------------------ CRMP.3801/2008 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CRMP.3900/2008 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- VASANTHY, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. RAMACHANDRAN, CHANDRA VILASAM, VILLIMANGALAM WEST, MANDROTHURUTHU, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. MR.VIJU THOMAS, SMT.M.MEENA JOHN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA ( IN CRIME NO. 529/08 OF EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION) 3. BINS RAJ, S/O. SADANANDAN, KALLIKKODE VEEDU, MANMDROTHURUTHU P.O., 4. BIJI RAJ, S/O. SADANANDAN, DO.... 5. BIJU RAJ, S/O. SADANANDAN DO..... R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB, R3 TO R5 BY ADVS. MR.B.RAMAN PILLAI, MR.R.ANIL, MR.ANIL K.MOHAMMED, MR.SUJESH MENON V.B, MR.JOSEPH P.ALEX, MR.SHYAM ARAVIND, MR.T.ANIL KUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 336 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to cancel Annexure IV Anticipatory Bail granted in Crl.M.P. 3801/2008. Crl.M.P. 3801/2008 was an application filed by three persons involved in Crime No. 529/08 for bail under Section 438 of the Crl.P.C. They were accused of offences punishable under Sections 447, 506(i), 324, 323, 307 r/w. 34 of the IPC. The allegation is to the effect that the petitioners therein and others had attacked the complainant son on 12.12.2008 at 10.45 p.m and caused injuries to them. Of course there is a stab injury. The learned Sessions Judge commented upon the prosecution for the non production of the C.D file and deprecated that conduct. In para 4 the learned Judge observed that the injuries made mention of in the report do not appear to be of a serious nature at all. Thereafter the court granted bail under Section 438 of the Crl.PC. I am informed thereafter the learned Magistrate also granted regular bail. Dissatisfied with the same an application for cancellation of Crl.M.C. 336/2009 -2- the anticipatory bail was filed as Crl.M.P. 3900/2008 before the Sessions Judge, Kollam. The Sessions Judge considered that matter elaborately and ultimately held that the cancellation of bail is a serious matter and the circumstances for the same has to be made out. The mere fact that the accused might have committed a heinous crime or other objectionable acts by themselves may not be a ground to cancel bail or anticipatory bail granted. The learned Judge further held that in order to cancel the bail once granted it has to be established that the accused has misused the privilege or has done something which would affect the investigation. It is further observed that the case on hand it is important to note that the investigating officer has no case at all that the accused persons who had been granted anticipatory bail have acted in a manner detrimental to the investigation. It also commented upon the fact that the prosecutor took a sympathetic view which might have been uncalled for. The apprehension projected at the time of application for cancellation of the bail was threat from the accused to the complainant as well as her son. The court Crl.M.C. 336/2009 -3- observed that apart from a mere speculation the petitioner has not pointed out any instance or act by the accused person who are let out on bail which would show that they are trying to influence the witness or interfere with the investigation. The first application for anticipatory bail had been granted as early as on 20.12.2008 and now we are almost in the close of March 2009 and nothing has been brought out or placed before this Court to show that the granting of bail had resulted in miscarriage of justice or it has affected or there has been default of the conditions of the bail order. After granting of the anticipatory bail the learned Magistrate also granted bail and that granting of bail is not challenged directly but only on the premise that it is a consequential order of granting of anticipatory bail. So much water had flown after the granting of bail and nothing is brought out which would satisfy the conscience of the court that things are in peril which would otherwise do away with the system of justice. But just because an offence under Section 307 is involved one shall not jump to the conclusion that no anticipatory bail can be granted at all and when that power has been used Crl.M.C. 336/2009 -4- absolutely not on account of the submission of the prosecution but when the court has made an observation that there is no serious injuries. Further when it is seen that there is no apprehension that accused would flee away from the place of occurrence, there is no necessity to cancel the bail which stand granted by a court, once reconsidered and rejected and further where regular bail has already granted by a Magistrate court. I do not propose to interfere with the said decision. Therefore the Crl.M.C is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm