IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 594 of 2010() ----------------------------- CMP.325/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------ RAJESH,@ JAYAN,S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, KOIPURATH VEEDU,KADAVOOR CHERRY,THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM(CRIME NO.528/2009 OF ANCHALMMOODU POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.594 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19 th day of February, 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner, who was the 2nd accused in Crime No.528 of 2009 of Anchalumoodu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, was granted anticipatory bail as per Annexure II order dated 3.02.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kollam subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, he surrendered before the Investigating Officer and was released on bail. While so, the Investigating Officer filed Crl.M.P.No.258 of 2010 before the Sessions Court, Kollam for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the revision petitioner was an accused in four other cases of which three cases ended in acquittal since the prosecution witnesses were won over and the Investigating Officer could not give proper instructions to the Public Prosecutor for opposing the application for anticipatory bail. Crl.R.P. No.594 of 2010 2 2. Heard both sides. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. 3. I cannot agree that Annexure II order was passed without proper application of mind. Even assuming that the accused was involved in other crimes, that was a matter which could have been brought to the notice of the Sessions Judge and in any view of the matter, it was the very same officer who released the petitioner on bail pursuant to Annexure II order. Instead of doing that he could have reported back to the Sessions Court or could have moved this Court stating that the anticipatory bail should not have been granted to the petitioner. That was also not done. Even according to the Investigating Officer three out of the four cases in which the petitioner was an accused ended in acquittal. The Investigating Officer cannot sit in judgment over those acquittals. Hence, I am of the view that the court below was not justified in cancelling the bail especially when there was no allegation that the petitioner had violated any of the bail conditions. The impugned order dated 11.2.2010 is accordingly set aside and Annexure II order dated 3.2.2010 in C.M.P.No.258 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kollam is revived with the following modifications:- Crl.R.P. No.594 of 2010 3 1. The petitioner shall not enter the limits of the Anchalumoodu Police station until further orders from the Magistrate having jurisdiction. 2. The petitioner shall report before the Dy.S.P., Kollam between 9 am and 11 am on all Wednesdays. Other conditions including the duration of bail in Annexure II order shall continue to apply. In the event of any breach of any of the bail conditions. the bail granted to the petitioner shall be liable to be cancelled by the Sessions Court, Kollam. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. Dated this the 19 th day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj