IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6794 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/08/2008 IN CMP. 3368 /2008 IN CC.183/2002 of C.J.M.,KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------ C.M.SALEEM @ TIGER SALEEM, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 27 YEARS CHERAMKAI KADAPURAM, ERIYAL, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6794 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th November, 2008 O R D E R This is the second application for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 380, 457 and 461 IPC. Petitioner is an accused in a bank burglary case. The incident occurred on 28.7.2001 and petitioner was granted bail. Thereafter, he failed to appear in the court and non-bailable warrant was issued against him. Petitioner was arrested on 4.8.2008. He was remanded, dismissing the application for bail. Learned Magistrate found that petitioner was involved in other cases also of similar nature and if bail was granted, it is likely that he will again abscond and the proceedings will be prolonged to an indefinite period. Therefore, bail was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was working in Bombay and hence, he could not be appear for trial. Petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition and he may be granted bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned public prosecutor opposed this bail application and pointed out that the crime is of the year 2001 and final report was filed as early as in 2002. 8½ kg. of gold ornaments and Rs.40,000/- were stolen from a bank by BA No.6794 /2008 2 petitioner and other accused are standing trial. While disposing of the earlier application, a direction was given to expedite trial and dispose of the case without any delay. At the time of hearing of earlier application, it was stated that petitioner was working abroad and now it is stated that he was working in Bombay. Learned Magistrate dismissed the application for bail making the following observations: “This court has also perused the file of C.C.No.183/02 and it is very clear that this accused has availed his right of bail in this case in the previous occasion and he has participated in the trial up to examination of PWs 1 to 14 and subsequently he also absconded and evaded from the further trial of the case on his own volition that is intentionally he was evading from participating in trial and hence, this case was split up and NBW issued. On NBW, he was arrested and produced and hence, he is in judicial custody from 4.8.2008 onwards. It is also seen that this accused is also the accused in CC No.473/08 and in CC 474/08 before this court wherein also offence alleged against the BA No.6794 /2008 3 accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 153(A) of IPC and under Sections 506(ii), 153 (A), 435 read with Section 34 IPC pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- I, Kasaragod also. So considering all the relevant facts and also pendency of the cases, it is very pertinent to note that if the accused is again released on bail, there is every chance/possibility of absconding from his part and the same will be prolonged the proceedings of the case for an indefinite period. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the bail to this accused cannot be granted once again to him in the same case.” 5. On hearing both sides I agree with the above observations. Considering the stage of the case and conduct of the accused and likelihood of petitioner absconding, if bail is granted, I do not find any reason to differ from the trial court's view. I am not inclined to grant bail at this stage of the case. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl