IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 827 OF 2011() CRMP.2852/2010 OF SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- BINU, S/O.PADMANABHAN, PULUPUKALLEL HOUSE, KURISHUPARA KARA, ANAVIRATTY VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKKARA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. EXCISE RANGE OFFICER, ADIMALI EXCISE RANGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNNAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.827 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.12 of 2010 of Adimali Excise Range Office for offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. Leaned Sessions Judge granted him bail on 30.06.2010 subject to conditions which included that petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. The Excise Range Officer, Adimali filed Crl.M.P. No.2852 of 2010 to cancel the bail on the ground that petitioner has violated the aforesaid condition and was arrested for offences punishable under Secs.55(a) and (8)(1) of the Abkari Act in Crime No.904 of 2010. Learned Sessions Judge served notice on the petitioner (who then was in jail) and by Annexure 3, order cancelled the bail granted to him in Crime No.12 of 2010. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel submitted that allegations against petitioner in Crime No.904 of 2010 are false and that he only happened to be a passenger in the bus from which the contraband was allegedly seized by the Excise Officials. It is submitted by learned counsel that in Crime No.904 of 2010 this Court has granted bail to the petitioner as CRL.M.C. No. 827 of 2011 -: 2 :- per Annexure A2, order dated September 8, 2010. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. While granting bail in Crime No.12 of 2010 there was a specific condition imposed on petitioner that he shall not get involved in any offence while on bail. It is not disputed that in connection with Crime No.904 of 2010 for a similar offence petitioner was arrested by the Excise Officials subsequent to the grant of bail in Crime No.12 of 2010 and imposition of condition. 3. At this stage I am unable to accept contention of petitioner that he was falsely implicated in Crime No.904 of 2010 due to enmity. That, petitioner was later granted bail by this Court in Crime No.904 of 2010 is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge canceling the bail. I do not find reason to interfere with the said order. 4. But petitioner is entitled to seek fresh bail. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to surrender in the court concerned (in Crime No.12 of 2010) and seek fresh bail. If any such application is preferred learned Sessions Judge shall taken CRL.M.C. No. 827 of 2011 -: 3 :- into account the fact that petitioner was granted bail in Crime No.904 of 2010 and pass appropriate orders. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of as above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv