IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5668 of 2008() ----------------------------- SC.885/2006 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED ---------------------------- JOSEPH @ JOSE, S/O. JOHNY ULAHANNAN, PULPPARAMBIL HOUSE, BATHERY AMSOM DESOM, WYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------- 1. DY.S.P CRIME BRANCH, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALAE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 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.