IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4788 of 2010() ----------------------------- CC.489/2010 of J.M.F.C.-IV,KOZHIKODE (CMP.3230/2010) .................... PETITIONER (S):/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ROY, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 40, PILLIKKOOTTIL HOUSE, NELLIKKODE KATHEEDRIL COLONY, NEAR KACHILATTU U.P.SCHOOL. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, S.I. OF POLICE OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.244/1995, REPRESENTED BY STATE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A. No. 4788 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 457, 380 r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner (A3) along with two hers committed theft of a lamp from a temple after breaking ope the temple. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that crime is of the year 1995. Petitioner was arrested in 1995 and he was in custody for six months. Thereafter, he was released on bail and at that time, he was residing in his parental house. After some time, because of some difference of opinion with his close relatives, he started residing at a place situated 15 Km away from his parental house. Summons was affixed in the parental address and petitioner was not aware of such affixure since he had shifted his residence. He did not get any summons in the present address. He was not informed by anybody about any summons issued. Therefore, he did not appear before the court. Petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition. Petitioner is also prepared to furnish his present address before the court. The B.A. No.4788/10 2 petitioner has no intention to abscond, it is submitted. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that first accused was also absconding. He was arrested subsequently and at conclusion trial, he was convicted. Petitioner is not involved in any other crime. It is conceded that summons was served by affixure in the address shown in the case records. He also submitted that stringent conditions may be imposed while granting bail, to prevent accused from absconding. 5. On haring both sides, I am satisfied that bail can be granted to petitioner on conditions. Hence the following order is passed: Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned, on the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall report before the Station House Officer, Nadakkavu Police Station on every alternate day between 5pm. and 8 pm, excluding the days on which he has to report before the court. (ii) In case the petitioner is involved in any offence of similar nature, his bail is liable to be cancelled. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.