IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1861 of 2010() ---------------------------------- SC.638/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSE NO.2 : -------------------------------- KANARAN, S/O. CHEKKAYI, PADINCHOTH HOUSE, VALAYAM AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ------------------------ B.A. No. 1861 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Sessions Case No. 638/2007 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vadakara. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 448 and 436 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner was granted bail during the crime stage. During the committal proceedings also he was on bail. Later, when the case was transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vadakara, the petitioner absented himself. He remained absent on 03.11.2009. Applications were being filed earlier to excuse his absence. On 03.11.2009, no application was also filed. Again, on 28.11.2009, the petitioner was absent. Meanwhile, non bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. It was not executed. Notice was issued to the sureties. They sought time to produce the petitioner before B.A. No. 1861 of 2010 2 Court on 11.03.2010. On 10.03.2010, the petitioner was arrested and he was produced before the Court. The petitioner moved for bail. The Bail Application was dismissed by the Sessions Court as per the order dated 16.03.2010. 4. The only reason stated before the Court, for the absence of the petitioner, was that he was suffering from rheumatism. The learned Sessions Judge noticed in the order that the petitioner did not even state that he was laid up. There was no justifiable reason for the absence of the petitioner in court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by way of extreme indulgence, the petitioner may be released on bail on very stringent conditions. It is submitted that the petitioner is prepared to comply with any condition that may be imposed by the Court. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioner on stringent conditions. 7. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, B.A. No. 1861 of 2010 3 Vadakara subject to the following conditions:- A) The petitioner shall report before the Station House Officer, Nadapuram Police Station between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on every Monday and Thursday, until the trial of the case is over. B) The petitioner shall not leave the Kozhikode District without prior permission of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vadakara, until the trial of the case is over. C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. E) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln