IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 710 of 2011() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.588/2010 OF PANOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 ----------------------------------------------- SHAJI V.P., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, KALLAMPARAMBATH HOUSE, PATHAYAKKUNNU P.O., PATYAM AMSOM, THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (CRIME NO.588/2010 OF PANOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No. 710 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 08th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.558 of 2010 of Panoor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 353, 332, 294(b), 506(i) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 52 of the Kerala Police Act. The incident occurred on 18.09.2010 allegedly involving petitioner and 38 others. Learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner and as per that order petitioner surrendered in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27.10.2010 and was released on bail on his executing bond. One of the conditions imposed on petitioner was that he shall report to the Officer investigating the case on every Saturday between 9.00 and 11.00 a.m. While so, Station House Officer, Panoor filed Crl.M.P. No.3197 of 2010 in Crl. M.C. No.1425 of 2010 to cancel bail granted to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner did not comply with the condition of reporting to the Investigating Officer. Petitioner contended that he is a Teacher by profession and that on account of other engagements he could not report to CRL.M.C. No.710 of 2011 -: 2 :- the Investigating Officer on certain occasions though he was not able to obtain previous permission for the said purpose. He produced certain documents to support his contention. Learned Sessions Judge observed that the documents produced by petitioner cannot be taken into account to find sufficient reason for his non-appearance before the Investigating Officer as it was his duty to seek previous permission of the court for exemption from the condition imposed. Holding so, bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled by Annexure-III, order which is under challenge. Learned counsel contended that on the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the documents produced by petitioner it is not a case where petitioner had willfully refused to report before the Investigating Officer. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. In Thulaseedharan Nair v. State of Kerala (2006 [4] KLT 471) this Court held that power to cancel the bail granted is available only to the High Courts and the Courts of Session and the Parliament appears to have placed trust and faith that such superior courts will be able to identify valid reasons on which such an extraordinary, harsh remedy of law can be granted. It is stated that normally and ordinarily interference with the due CRL.M.C. No.710 of 2011 -: 3 :- course of justice, hampering investigation, abusing freedom granted by the court which granted bail, intimidation of witness, etc., are the reasons urged for cancellation of bail. It is left to the sound judicial discretion of the superior courts to decide in what cases an order of bail can be cancelled. 3. It is true that petitioner had not appeared before the Investigating Officer as the condition required him to do. But learned Sessions Judge had to look into the documents produced by the petitioner whether non-appearance was willful. No doubt petitioner could have obtained permission of the court for exemption from appearance on the relevant dates on which he found it not possible to appear before the Investigating Officer. But for the mere reason that petitioner did not get permission it need not mean that there was willful non-appearance. I think these are matters which the learned Sessions Judge has to consider having regard to the documents produced before him. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to make an application before the learned Sessions Judge to condone his non- appearance before the Investigating Officer. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-III, order dated February 11, 2011 on Crl. M.P. No.3197 CRL.M.C. No.710 of 2011 -: 4 :- of 2010 in Crl. M.C. No.1425 of 2010 is set aside and that petition is remitted to the learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery for fresh decision in the light of the decision referred supra, contention raised by petitioner and the documents produced by him and the request that petitioner may make to condone his absence before the Investigating Officer. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv