IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3846 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRMP.NO.3338/08 IN CRMC.NOS.1095 & 1099 OF 2008 OF SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. CRIME NO.127/08 OF VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CJM COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.4 --------------------------------- NARAYANAN, S/O.GOPAKUMAR, A.VRA 67, T.C.29/1310, PALKULANGARA, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT : COMPLAINANT -------------------------- CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PETTAH POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3846 of 2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.127/2008 of Vanchiyoor Police Station for offence under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 452, 307 IPC and Sec.27 of the Arms Act. He obtained bail as per order dated 24.6.2008 in Crl.MC.No.1095/2008 on certain conditions. One of the six conditions was to report before the investigating officer on the last Saturday of every month. Alleging that on 25.10.2008, the revision petitioner failed to report and thus he breached the conditions, the investigating officer filed a petition as CMP.No.3338/2008 before the Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. By order dated 6.10.2009, the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail on finding that the revision petitioner breached the conditions. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition was filed. Crl.R.P.No.3846 of 2009. -: 2 :- 2. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the so called breach is the failure of the revision petitioner to report before the investigating officer on 25.10.2008 and that on that day, in fact, the revision petitioner had been to the office of the investigating officer. But, the investigating officer was not in station and that since the register to mark appearance was not handed over to any other officer, the appearance could not be recorded on that day and suppressing that fact, the investigating officer filed the petition for cancelling the bail. In the meanwhile, since the revision petitioner happened to be under the bars in connection with some other cases, he could not file objection to the petition to cancel the bail. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner had not committed any breach. But, he could not explain the same as he was under the bars and that there is no justification in cancelling the bail. 3. The offence alleged in this case was committed as early as in 19.4.2008. Till now, no charge sheet was filed. Crl.R.P.No.3846 of 2009. -: 3 :- There is no case that the revision petitioner had any way interfered with the process of investigation. In the above circumstance, the revision petitioner is at liberty to apply for regular bail. At this long distance of time there is no justification for imposing conditional bail. Instead of applying for reviving a conditional bail, it would be appropriate to seek regular bail. According to the learned counsel, since the conditional bail was cancelled, there is likelihood of declining regular bail. I find no merit in the apprehension so long as no charge sheet was filed. There is no reason to apprehend that the revision petitioner would not get a fair disposal in the event he applies for regular bail. The revision petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to apply for regular bail. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-