IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH MAY 2010 / 14TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1465 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRMP.6236/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 --------------------------------- SATHEESH SHARMA, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. SUGANCHAND SHARMA, RESIDING AT SWEETY DANCE CLASSES, 1/17/1170 BEHIND OLD POST OFFICE, VISVANAGAR COLONY, NANDED, MAHARASHTRA, (OLD ADDRESS: JUTHAGALI HOUSE, BADHALOKPASS RAIPUR, PALI DISTRICT,RAJASTHAN) BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THROUGH DEPTY SUPERINETENDENT OF POLICE THIRUVALLA, (NOTICE TO WHOM MAY BE SENT ON THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SMT K MEERA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/05/2010, ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 1466 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.Nos.1465 and 1466 of 2010C --------------------------------------- Dated this 04th day of May, 2010 ORDER These revision petitions arise from separate orders passed by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thiruvalla in Crime Nos. 926 of 2007 and 527 of 2007, respectively canceling the bail granted to the petitioner (common in both the cases). According to the learned counsel, petitioner was granted bail in both the cases at the crime stage by the learned Magistrate and pursuant to the condition imposed, petitioner was reporting to the investigating officer regularly but on account of illness he could not do so after 03-02-2010. While so, the investigating officer submitted Annexure-A5, report before learned Magistrate seeking to cancel the bail for the purpose of police custody for further investigation and also reporting about non compliance of condition for appearance before him after 03-02-2010. In the meantime learned counsel for petitioner sought advancement of the crime cases and learned Magistrate as per order dated 12-03-2010 canceled the bail granted to the petitioner in both the cases. That order is impugned in these petitions. Learned counsel placing reliance on the decision in Nassar Vs. State of Kerala (2009(3) KLT 419) contends that Crl.R.P.Nos.1465 and 1466 of 2010 : 2 : learned Magistrate could not have canceled the bail and hence the order is illegal. It is also submitted that a copy of Annexure-A5, reports were not given to petitioner or counsel before bail was canceled. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent would submit that it is not on Annexure-A5, reports that bail was canceled but, for non compliance with the condition in the order granting bail. 2. I called for report from Judicial First Class Magistrate concerned. It is reported that though a copy of Annexure-A5 were not given to the petitioner or counsel the impugned orders were passed in the presence of counsel for petitioner. There is weight in the contention raised by learned Public Prosecutor that the impugned orders were not passed pursuant to the report submitted by investigating officer as per Annexure-A5 seeking police custody for further investigation. The impugned orders do not show that it is based on the reports made by investigating officer that the bail was canceled. The decision relied by learned counsel for petitioner is a case where bail was canceled on the request of investigating officer for further investigation and this court stated in paragraph 4 of the decision that the Magistrate could not have canceled the bail. In this case as distinguished from that case, bail was canceled for non compliance with the condition of bail bond. Section 437(5) Crl.R.P.Nos.1465 and 1466 of 2010 : 3 : would take care of that situation. 3. So far as absence of the petitioner in these cases before the investigating officer after 03-02-2010 is concerned, Annexure- A3 and A4 are medical certificates which show that petitioner has been undergoing treatment for some time from 07-02-2010 onwards. Learned Magistrate has canceled the bail for the reason that appropriate medical certificates were not produced by the petitioner. The medical certificates are now produced in these cases. Having regard to the condition that was violated by the petitioner and also taking into account the certificates produced before me I am inclined to condone the absence of the petitioner before the investigating officer after 03-02-2010. It follows that the order canceling the bail in these cases has to be set aside and the position as it stood before cancellation of bail is to be restored. I make it clear that petitioner shall strictly comply with the conditions in the bail bond until it is modified by the appropriate authority from this day onwards. Resultantly these revision petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 12-03-2010 are set aside. Petitioner shall comply with the conditions imposed by learned Magistrate while grating bail as modified by this court as per Annexure-A2, order until the conditions are lifted or modified by the appropriate Crl.R.P.Nos.1465 and 1466 of 2010 : 4 : authority. If the investigating officer requires custody of petitioner for investigation or, the bail is to be cancelled for any other reason, he can approach the appropriate authority for that purpose as provided under law. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- The figures and word “926 of 2007” occurring in the third line in the first page of order dated 04-05-2010 in Crl.R.P.Nos.1465 and 1466 of 2010 are corrected and substituted as “926 of 2008” vide order dated 17- 06-2010 in Crl.M.A.No.5432 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No.1465 of 2010. Sd/- Registrar Judicial