IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1794 of 2009() ------------------------- CRMP.358/2009 IN CRL.M.P.3287/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- SUDHEESH.S,S/O.SUDHAKARAN,CHANGATHATTEL HOUSE,CHARAMANGALAM,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MUHAMMA POLICE STATION,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2009 ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 1480 OF 2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.2979/2009 IN CRMC.NO.1794/2009 DISMISSED 8/06/2009 SD/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ----------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.1480/09 & CRL.M.C.1794/09 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated 8th June 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the third accused and petitioner in Crl.M.C.1794/9 is the first accused in crime No.178/2008 of Muhamma police station registered for the offences under Sections 392, 398 and 427 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Revision petitioner was granted bail by the Sessions court in Crl.M.P.2047/2009 on 31/7/2008. One of the conditions in the bail order was that he shall report before the District Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha on all Tuesdays from 9 a.m to 5 p.m until the final report is filed. Petitioner in Crl.M.C.1794/2009 was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge as per order dated 19/11/2008 in Crl.M.P.3287/2008. In that bail order was also there was a condition to report before the District Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha on all Sundays between 9 a.m and 5 p.m till the final report is filed. Contending that petitioners failed to comply with the said condition Crl.M.P.352/2009 was filed to CRL.R.P.NO.1480/09 & CRL.M.C.1794/09 2 cancel the bail granted to third accused and Crl.M.P.358/2009 to cancel the bail granted to first accused. In Crl.M.P.358/2009, in addition to the violation of the condition to appear before the District Superintendent of Police, investigating officer also alleged that first accused subsequently is involved in an offence committed under Sections 323, 324 and 341 on 18/12/2008 at 2 p.m and crime 310/2008 registered for the offences is under investigation. Learned Sessions Judge issued notice to the accused and after hearing the prosecution and the defence, as per two separate independent orders cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners. In Crl.M.P.353/2009 learned Sessions Judge found that petitioner willfully violated the condition by not appearing before District Superintendent of Police as directed in the order and therefore bail is liable to be cancelled. In Crl.M.P.358/2009 learned Sessions Judge in addition to finding the non compliance with the direction to report before the District Superintendent of police, found that crime 310/2008 was registered for inflicting injury to one Soman and bail was cancelled. Third accused has filed CRL.R.P.NO.1480/09 & CRL.M.C.1794/09 3 Crl.R.P.1480/09 challenging the order and first accused filed Crl.M.C.1794/2009. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that order passed by the Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.3287/2008 shows that after perusing the case diary learned Sessions Judge found that investigation is almost complete and that was in November 2008 and still final report is not filed and the only intention is to cause difficulties to the petitioners in view of the conditions imposed while granting bail. Case of the petitioner is that though he had complied with the conditions, later he was informed by the writer that he need not appear and believing that words, he did not appear and it was not intentional. Petitioner/first accused contended that he was laid up due to viral hepatitis and in support of the case Annexure-A2 medical certificate was produced. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both accused intentionally violated the conditions and therefore learned Sessions Judge was justified in cancelling the bail. CRL.R.P.NO.1480/09 & CRL.M.C.1794/09 4 4. Condition to report before the District Superintendent of Police was incorporated in the bail order for smooth investigation of the case. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge granting bail to the first accused in November 2008, itself shows that investigation is almost completed. There is no justification for continuing the said condition. Though petitioners failed to appear before the investigating officer as stated in the bail order, on the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it justifiable to cancel the bail. 5. The only contention raised for cancellation of the bail as against petitioner in Crl.R.P.1480/2009 is failure to report before the District Superintendent of Police and the allegation that he is influencing the witnesses. Details of the alleged influence including the identity of the witness who was attempted to be influenced is not disclosed in the report. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, learned Sessions Judge should not have cancelled the bail of the third accused. Similarly, as far as first accused is concerned, though there is allegation that he is an CRL.R.P.NO.1480/09 & CRL.M.C.1794/09 5 accused in crime 178/2008 being investigated by the police in respect of an incident that had taken place on 18/12/2008, there is no allegation in Crl.M.P.352/2009 that first accused had violated the condition not to enter the local limits of Alappuzha district except for reporting before the District Superintendent of Police. If petitioner was involved in any other case, police is free to arrest him. But that does not mean that in the guise of the protracted investigation, purpose of granting bail is to be defeated. In the interest of justice order cancelling bail in Crl.M.P.352/2009 and 358/2009 are set aside. But it is made clear that if the petitioners are influencing or threatening the witnesses or causing any obstruction for the investigation, Investigating officer is at liberty to approach the Sessions Judge to cancel the bail. 6. Crl.R.P.1480/2009 and Crl.M.C.1794/2009 are allowed. Annexure-A1 order in Crl.M.P.352/2009 is set aside. It is made clear that petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer as and when required and it shall not be necessary for him to appear before the District Superintendent of Police CRL.R.P.NO.1480/09 & CRL.M.C.1794/09 6 as stated in the order for bail. But the condition not to enter the local limits of Alappuzha district is maintained. 7. Annexure-A3 order in Crl.M.P.358/2009 is set aside. It is made clear that petitioner need only appear before the Investigating officer as and when required and not before the District Superintendent of Police as stated in the original order granting bail. But the condition not to enter within the local limits of Alappuzha district is maintained. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.