IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2007 / 29TH PAUSHA 1928 Crl.MC.No. 119 of 2004() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN CRMP 525/03 IN SC.92/2001 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LATHA. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. BENTO, S/O. THOMAS, VADASSERIL VEEDU, ELOOR THEKKUMBHAGAM, ELOOR. 2. NATARAJAN, S/O. BHASKARAN, KADATHARA VEEDU, PALLIPPURAM CHALIL -DO- -DO-. 3. MUHAMMED, S/O. SEYEDMUHAMMAD, KUZHILAKATH, THURUTHKARA, ALUVA. 4. SHIBU, S/O. ANTONY, KADEPARAMBU VEEDU, ELOOR VADAKKUMBHAGAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO. 119 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2007 ORDER This petition has been filed by the State as early as on 14/1/2004 complaining about Annexure-I order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur. The trial in a Sessions Case under Sec.302 of the IPC was in progress. Altogether there were four accused persons. When the trial was held in part, the Prosecutor filed an application that the bail granted to the accused/respondents herein may be cancelled. It was alleged that the accused are interfering with the due course of justice. The learned Sessions Judge considered the matter in detail. The learned Judge permitted adducing of evidence also. But, after considering all the relevant inputs, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the bail granted to the respondents is not liable to be cancelled. Detailed reasons are given in the impugned order by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The prosecution claims to be aggrieved by the CRL.M.C.NO. 119 OF 2004 -: 2 :- impugned order. No specific, definite, precise and succinct allegation is made which would justify a court resorting to the harsh remedy available under law - of cancelling the bail already granted to the indictees. I find the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge to be absolutely justified and I concur with the conclusion that the available inputs do not justify the cancellation of bail of the respondents. It is further noted that an interim stay was granted on 19/1/2004 and the trial had not proceeded further after that date. 3. I am satisfied that this Crl.M.C. can now be dismissed with a direction to the police to ensure that the witnesses are permitted and given opportunity to tender evidence without threat or intimidation from the accused persons or their supporters. If there be any specific incident hereafter, the option of the State to file an application for cancellation of bail on specific allegations shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge