IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4861 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/07/2008 IN CRMP 293/08 IN SC.216/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PARAVUR CRIME NO. 118/1997 OF KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------- RAJU, S/O.RAGHAVAN, MOOTHEDAM HOUSE ALLAPRA DESOM, VENGOLA VILLAGE @RAJESH NAIR, S/O.NARAYANAN, MANAKKAPPADY HOUSE, U.C.COLLEGE BY ADV. SRI.PRASUN.S SRI.O.S.JAFARKHAN RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REP. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CBCID(CFS), ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4861 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 O R D E R Application for bail 2. The alleged offence is under section 489(C) read with section 34 IPC. Petitioner is the 1st accused. During the pendency of the trial in S.C. No.216/2002, the petitioner/accused was absent from 29-1-2008 onwards. He was produced in court only on issuance of production warrant by the court below. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed in paragraph 3 of the order that the accused jumped the bail on several occasions and therefore if bail was granted, he may again abscond and thereby undue delay would be caused in the trial. 3. On hearing both sides, I do not find any reason to come to a different finding. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only once the petitioner was absent i.e., on 29-1-2008 and that he was prevented by sufficient cause from not appearing in court, as evidenced by Annexure -A2, since he was under treatment and was advised bed rest. Annexure-A2 certificate issued from the Government Ayurveda College Hospital shows that he was advised bed rest from 3-12-2007 to 1-2-2008. So, it appears that BA 4861/08 -2- petitioner was on bed rest on 29-1-2008. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate that the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge that the petitioner jumped bail on several occasions is not correct. If such observation is not correct, the petitioner may bring this fact to the notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge once again, by moving another bail application, in which event, it shall be considered and disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge on merit. However, on the submissions made in this case alone, in the absence of any materials I do not find any reason to hold that the observations are not correct. This application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.