IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7488 of 2009 CRIME NO.80 OF 2003 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION SC NO.391/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK – II, ERNAKULAM. PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- RAMACHANDRAN @ RAMESH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. VASU, PARAMBBIL VEEDU, KODAMANCHIRA BHAGOM, KOOPPADY VILLAGE, BATHERI TALUK, WAYANAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP S KALLAR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: STATER: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 7488 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.80 of 2003 of Angamaly Police Station, which is now pending as S.C.No.391 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track – II, Ernakulam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The date of occurrence was on 10.2.2003. After committal of the case, the petitioner was granted regular bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter, he did not appear before court. According to the petitioner, he was absent only on three occasions. The bail bonds were cancelled and non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. Notice was also issued to the sureties. At that time, the petitioner surrendered before Court on 19.11.2008. He moved for bail. That application was dismissed by the learned B.A. NO. 7488 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Sessions Judge by the order dated 31.10.2009. It is stated by the learned Sessions Judge that the learned Public Prosecutor had highlighted the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and that the presence of the petitioner could be secured before Court only after great effort was made by the police. 4. In a crime registered in 2003, the Sessions Case could not be disposed of only because of the non-co-operation by the petitioner. Had the petitioner appeared before the learned Sessions Judge, the case would have been over by this time. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has to maintain his mother and grandmother and there is nobody else to look after them. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that for a quite long time the petitioner was not available in the State of Kerala itself and, therefore, this contention put forward by the petitioner is without any bona fides. 5. I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case. At the same time, it is only appropriate to direct the Sessions Judge to dispose of the Sessions Case expeditiously. B.A. NO. 7488 OF 2009 :: 3 :: Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed. However, learned Sessions Judge shall make earnest efforts to dispose of the Sessions Case expeditiously. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/