IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 387 of 2009() ------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.824/2008 OF VADAKKUMPURAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------- JAYAN, S/O. SEKHARAN, AGED YEARS, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, MANAKKODAM KARAYIL, CHENNAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKKARA,THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SUDHEER, S/O.SATHYAPALAN, RESIDING AT RESIDENCE OF PALLAN SHAJU, VALIAVALLAMTHURUTHU VILLAGE, VADAKKEKKARA. 3. ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR JFMC NORTH PARUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 387 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under Secs.452 and 506(ii) read with Sec.34 IPC and Sec.27 of the Arms Act. The alleged incident took place on 10/12/08. Altogether, there are 4 accused persons, it is submitted. The 2nd respondent herein is the 2nd accused. He was arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate on 14/12/08. His application for regular bail was considered and by Annexure-A4 order, the petitioner was granted bail subject to conditions. Annexure-A4 order shows that the Prosecutor did not oppose the application for regular bail. It is significant that even as per the allegations, the victims have not suffered any injury and the allegations are raised only under Secs.452 and 506(ii) read with Sec.34 and Crl.M.C. No. 387 of 2009 -: 2 :- Sec.27 of the Arms Act. Annexure-A4 further shows that regular bail was granted subject to conditions. The accused is obliged to report before the Investigating Officer on one specified day every week until the final report is filed. He is also directed not to leave the home District without the prior permission of the S.H.O. concerned. 2. The State has not filed any application for cancellation of the bail. In fact, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Public Prosecutor did not oppose the application for regular bail. 3. The petitioner – the de facto complainant, prays that the bail granted may be cancelled. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail was granted to the accused on the basis of the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the application is not opposed. The learned counsel further submits that the allegations are serious. Dangerous weapons were wielded by the accused. Even before the recovery of the weapons bail has been granted. The respondent/accused has criminal antecedents and he has been indulging in threatening of witnesses. In fact, an order of police protection has already been granted in favour of the petitioner herein as per Annexure-A2 judgment passed by a Crl.M.C. No. 387 of 2009 -: 3 :- Division Bench of this Court. In these circumstances, the bail is liable to be cancelled, it is urged. 4. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. I am not persuaded to agree that any such compelling reasons are even alleged to justify the invocation of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Sec.439(2) Cr.P.C. to cancel the bail already granted. I take note of the fact that the alleged incident occurred on 10/12/08; the accused was arrested on 14/12/08 and he was enlarged on bail only on 16/12/08. The learned Public Prosecutor did not oppose the application. The alleged victims have not suffered any injury whatsoever even admittedly and there is no specific allegation that the freedom/liberty granted under the bail order has been misused by the respondent/accused. Cancellation of bail already granted is one of the exceptional remedies that can be granted by a court and compelling and satisfactory reasons must be shown to exist. I am unable to find any such reasons available in this case. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed; but with the specific observation that if there be any specific, contumacious conduct on the part of the respondent/accused abusing the freedom/liberty granted to him under the order granting bail (Annexure-A4) the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise specific Crl.M.C. No. 387 of 2009 -: 4 :- complaint before the learned Magistrate who granted the order and the learned Magistrate must thereupon consider such grievance and take necessary action. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge