IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7317 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.3442/2008 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO. POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ACCUSED: ------------------------------- ULLAS, S/O.BARGAVAN, KUZHIPPIL CHARUVILA VEEDU, AMMANATHU MUKKU, CHIRACKARA THAZHAM, CHIRACKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY P.P. SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7317 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under section 376 IPC read with section 3 of Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Crime was registered as early as in 2003 as Crime No.84/2003 against petitioner and petitioner was granted bail also. But he was absconding. Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. as Crl.M.C. no.3436/2008 before this Court seeking a direction to dispose of the case expeditiously. Another bench of this Court directed the Sessions Court to pass orders on merit in the application for bail filed by petitioner expeditiously on the date of his surrender itself, after sufficient prior notice is given to Public Prosecutor in charge of the case. Petitioner, accordingly, surrendered before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court as per order dated 18-11- 2008 dismissed the application. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was not actually absconding, but he could not appear before the court on a particular day, since the date was noted wrongly by Advocate Clerk. Later, also he could not appear, since he could not arrange sureties, since he is financially poor. It is in BA 7317 /08 -2- such circumstances that petitioner could not appear. Therefore, bail may be granted to petitioner, it is submitted. 4. On hearing both sides and on going through the order passed by learned Sessions Judge as per Annexure-A3 order, I can only agree with the learned Sessions Judge. It will be difficult to procure the presence of petitioner/accused for trial as evident from the earlier conduct of petitioner during the trial. Bail bond was cancelled twice. Learned Sessions Judge has given all the relevant details in the order passed by him. On going through the same, I do not find any reason to differ from him. Learned Sessions Judge rightly rejected the bail application. Learned Sessions Judge also observed that every effort will be taken to have the trial of the case completed as expeditiously as possible. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the case is taken on file in the year 2006 and it could not be disposed of only because of the default from the part of petitioner. The crime is of the year 2003. Petitioner was absent in the court on several occasions. There is every likelihood that petitioner may abscond if he is released on bail. 6. However, learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the case within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of BA 7317 /08 -3- this order. If for any reason, it is not possible for learned Sessions Judge to dispose of the case within the above time, petitioner is at liberty to apply for bail again, before the trial court itself. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.