IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5974 of 2009() ----------------------------- SC.2316/2006 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM CRIME NO.167/2005 OF PEROORKADA POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- RAMESH @ KANNAN,S/O.DIVAKARAN NAIR, HOUSE NO.BNR-36,KPX-37,BHAGAVATHY NAGAR, NCC ROAD,PULLAMKONAM WARD, KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.NITHIN JACOB RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY P.PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5974 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.167 of 2005 of Peroorkada Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. At the trial stage, the petitioner was granted bail. Later, from 2006 onwards, he was absconding. Proceedings were initiated against the sureties. Even then, the petitioner did not appear. He was arrested on 25.9.2009. He moved an application for bail. That application was dismissed. The petitioner moved for bail before the Sessions Court in Crl.M.C.No.1510/2009. That application was also dismissed by the order dated 6th October 2009. The learned Sessions Judge held that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and making it impossible to complete the trial of the case. However, the trial court was BA No.5974 /2009 2 directed to expedite the trial of the case giving priority to the case. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner was suffering from cancer and that was the reason why he did not appear before court. It is submitted that the petitioner is prepared to comply with any conditions that may be imposed by the court. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it proper to release the petitioner on bail. From 2006 onwards he was absconding. The reason stated by the petitioner for his absence in court does not appear to be a reasonable explanation. Even if the reason is true, he could make proper application before the trial court to condone his absence. He kept away from court and from 2006 to 2009, his presence could not be secured before the court. In these circumstances I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get any discretionary relief. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl