IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5221 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP.606/2009 IN SC.616/2006 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- UNNI, S/O.DEVADASAN, VADAKKE PAIKKAT MEETHEL, ATHOLI AMSOM KOOMULLI DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 5221 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 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 S.C. No.616 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Vadakara. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 3. The trial of the case was to commence on 9.12.2008. The petitioner remained absent on that day. The witnesses who were summoned and who were present could not be examined. The bail bonds were cancelled and a non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. On 9.1.2009 the petitioner was produced by the sureties. The court was pleased to grant bail to the petitioner on 13.1.2009. The case was again scheduled for trial on 14.7.2009 and 15.7.2009. The petitioner remained absent on those days also. Again the bail was cancelled and a non-bailable warrant was issued. B.A. NO. 5221 OF 2009 :: 2 :: The petitioner surrendered on 7.8.2009. He moved for bail. The court below by the order dated 25.8.2009 rejected the prayer for granting bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case is scheduled to be taken for trial on 22.10.2009 and 23.10.2009. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has to maintain his wife and four children. The petitioner undertakes to comply with any condition that may be imposed by the Court. 6. I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. He did not appear before Court on two occasions when the case was scheduled for trial. He did not co-operate with the Court. Several persons were put to inconvenience. The court could not dispose of the case because of the absence of the petitioner. The sureties were to be summoned to the Court. The sureties were also put to inconvenience. Now the offer made by the petitioner to comply with any condition seems to be not bona fide. B.A. NO. 5221 OF 2009 :: 3 :: For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. However, the petitioner may move the court below for posting the case for trial on an early date, if it is otherwise possible as per the posting of other cases already made. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/