IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7294 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1003/03 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION L.P.NO.30/08 OF VITH ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ BIJU @ CHOWKA BIJU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, KARIVELIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MADHAVAPURAM COLONY, PATTERIPURAM KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7294 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in L.P.No.30/08 on the file of the court of the VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 398 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The crime was registered in the year 2003. It is stated that the petitioner was granted bail before committal of the case to the Sessions Court. Thereafter, he absconded. The case was treated as long pending. The petitioner was produced before court on 21.10.2009 on production warrant as he was involved in another case. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. 4. The first accused was tried in S.C.No.498 of 2006 and he was convicted. The petitioner was absconding for years together. It is alleged that during that period, he was involved in another crime. His presence could be procured in the present BA No.7294/2009 2 case only on his arrest in another crime. It is not proper to release the petitioner on bail in these circumstances. The learned Sessions Judge was right in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The petitioner may move for expeditious trial of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl