IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7929 of 2008() ----------------------------- SC.885/2006 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), VADAKARA PETITIONER (S): -------------------- JOSEPH @ JOSE, S/O.JOHNY ULAHANNAN PULPPARAMBIL HOUSE, BATHERY AMSOM DESOM, WYNADDISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DY.S.P.CRIME BRANCH, KOZHIKODE 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 7929 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 12th day of January,2009 O R D E R Petition for bail. 2. Petitioner is the 6th accused. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 307, 302, 124 and 120(B) of IPC. He was granted bail by this Court and he executed bond also, before the lower court and released on bail on 15.12.2006. He failed to appear thereafter, and was arrested on 29.3.2008 and produced before the court. On 7.4.2008, he was produced, on production warrant in the case. His bail application was rejected and he was remanded. 3. This is the second petition for bail. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application and submitted that the petitioner had absconded after his release on bail on execution of the bond and he could be arrested only after two years. In the meantime, he also committed various other offences on absconding, in breach of the condition imposed by this Court in the bail order. There was a condition that the petitioner shall not BA 7929/08 -2- commit any offence while on bail and it was ordered that if the petitioner commits breach of any of the condition, bail granted to him will be liable to be cancelled. Therefore, the petitioner having committed other offences, while on bail, the court below has rightly cancelled the bond and the petitioner was arrested on 29.3.2008 and he was produced in this case, as per production warrant on 7.4.2008. Therefore, the order dismissing the bail application is only sustainable, it is submitted. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner may be granted one more chance and that petitioner will abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. It is also submitted that it is not likely that the trial will be commenced without any delay, since the case is pending before the Special Court for N.D.P.S. Cases. Therefore, petitioner will be forced to remand in jail for a long time, even though as per the case against petitioner who is the 7th accused has only a limited role in the incident. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the case has to be disposed of without delay. The petitioner is at liberty to apply for bail before the trial court, if there is any delay in disposal of the case. If any application is filed before the trial court depending upon the stage of the case, and considering the facts and BA 7929/08 -3- circumstances, petition shall be disposed of without any delay, on merit. The trial court shall take expeditious steps to dispose of the case without delay. With this direction petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.