IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8915 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- S.C. NO.146/2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS (ADHOC) COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA. (CRIME NO.70/2002 OF CBCID, CR.239/CR/CT/02) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- CHELLAPPAN,S/O.KUTTY HOUSE NO.374, KATTIL PARAMBIL, PARUMALA, VTH WARD, KADAPRA, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SRI.S.SREEDEV. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.K. RAJEEV. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.8915 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime No. 70 of 2002 of CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram. 2.The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 489-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation is that the petitioner supplied 100 counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- to accused Nos.1 to 4 and those currency notes were circulated by them. 4. Since the petitioner did not appear before the court, the case against him was split up. Later, he was arrested and he was granted bail, but he did not comply with the conditions, B.A.No.8915 OF 2011 2 and he failed to appear before the Court. Steps were taken under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Non bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the court. The learned Sessions Judge refused bail to the petitioner. In paragraph 3 of the order dated 19th October, 2011, the learned Sessions Judge held as follows: “3. On the basis of the FI statement given by CW1 crime was registered, produced the fake notes in the police station, which was taken under mahazar, arrested A1, 3 & 4 and filed charge against the accused under the above sections. A1 expired before filing the charge. Since A5 was absconding, case against him was split up. Thereafter A5 was arrested and produced before the committal court and the accused was granted bail and committed the case to the Sessions Court after complying the legal formalities. After committal accused didn't appear and hence his bail bond was forfeited. Non bailable warrant was issued, which was returned with report that accused could not be traced out. Thereafter steps U/s.82 and 83 was ordered and at last accused was arrested and produced before court and hence this bail application.” 5. In a crime registered in the year 2002, the trial could not be completed because the petitioner was not available. Even after granting bail, the petitioner jumped bail and the trial could not be completed. With great difficulty, the presence of B.A.No.8915 OF 2011 3 the petitioner is procured. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that if bail is granted to the petitioner, he will abscond again. The view taken by the Sessions Judge cannot be faulted. 6. The allegations levelled against the accused are very serious in nature. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it is almost sure that the court would not be able to complete the trial of the case. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. The court shall expedite the trial of the case, taking into account the fact that the crime is of the year 2002 and also the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms