IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 734 of 2009() ---------------------------- MC.242/2009 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... (CRIME NO.2045/08 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION) PETITIONER:ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- JOSE PAUL T.M. , S/O. T.V.MARCILIN AGED 32 YEARS, KAITHVALAPPIL (THAMARASSERY) MANJUMMEL P.O.,ELOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE S.I.OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.734 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 408 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner was granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court as per order dated 21.11.2008 in Crl.M.P.No.10085 of 2008 with certain conditions. The conditions were not complied with and hence, bail was cancelled and petitioner was remanded. 3. Petitioner now seeks bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Petitioner having not complied with the condition in the bail order which has become final, it may not be proper for this Court to grant bail to petitioner on some other conditions. Since petitioner has violated the condition and it was because of such violation that he is remanded, it is not proper for this Court to grant bail without the petitioner complying with the order. If petitioner has any grievance against the order in canceling the bail, he may approach the appropriate forum, but bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C cannot be granted. BA.734/09 2 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is a direction by this Court to reconsider the condition afresh as per Annexure-I order, but the court has not considered the same. Instead, petitioner was remanded. If there is non compliance of any direction by this Court, the party will have to move the appropriate forum for appropriate relief, but bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C will not be the remedy. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.