IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2954 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2008 IN CR.MP.607/2008 IN SC.885/2006 of SPL.COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), VADAKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 6TH ACCUSED --------------------------------------- JOSEPH @ JOSE, S/O. JOHNY ULAHANNAN, PULPPARAMBIL HOUSE, BATHERY AMSOM DESOM, WYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------- 1. DY.S.P CRIME BRANCH, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.08.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 2954 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008. ORDER The revision petitioner, who is the 6th accused in S.C. No. 885 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Vadakara, was granted bail by this Court as per the order dated 12.12.2006 in B.A. No. 7491 of 2006. The offences alleged against the petitioner and others are those punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 364, 395, 307, 302 and 427 r/w Sections 149 and Section 120 B of IPC. While the petitioner was on bail, the Sulthan Bathery police registered a case against him under Section 225(B) IPC and Section 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The said case was registered as crime No. 231 of 2006. He again applied for bail before the trial court by filing C.M.P. No. 607 of 2008. The said application was dismissed, inter alia, holding that the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court while he was enlarged on bail and that he had abused the liberty granted to him. It is the said order dated 05.08.2008 passed by the trial Judge which is CRL.R.P. NO. 2954/2008 : 2: assailed in this revision. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the trial Judge had no jurisdiction to cancel the bail order issued by this Court and that if the petitioner was guilty of non-compliance of the bail conditions the maximum which that court could do was to cancel the bail bond. I cannot agree with the above submission. First of all, the court below has not cancelled the bail order or the bail bond. The court has only dismissed the petitioner's application for bail. While doing so, the court has also observed that the petitioner committed breach of the bail conditions and misused the liberty granted to him by the court. That cannot amount to cancellation of the bail order. The remedy of the petitioner is to apply for fresh bail either before the trial court or before a superior Court. I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. CRL.R.P. NO. 2954/2008 : 3: rv