IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3103 of 2010() ----------------------------- SC.885/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), VADAKARA .................... (S): PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ P.U.JOSE @ JOSEPH,S/O.JOHNY ULAHANNAN, PULPPARAMBIL HOUSE, BATHERY AMSOM DESOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,CBCID ,KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3103 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 19th August, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. This is the third application for bail. The alleged offences are under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 341, 364, 395, 307, 302 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had not actually jumped bail. He was allowed by the Police Constable, who escorted him to the court, to see his ailing wife, who was not prepared to go to the doctor, though she had profuse bleeding because of malignancy. He was actually trapped and arrested, when he met his wife. It is only to see that petitioner's bail is refused that this farce was done. 4. It is true that petitioner is involved in theft cases, but the only material available against him is the confession of a co-accused. Though first accused is the actual assailant, he is on bail. As far as petitioner is concerned, no specific overt act is alleged against him. Petitioner is in custody with effect from 17.4.2008. It is not likely that the trial will be concluded in near BA NO.3103/10 2 future. Petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition. His son is to be admitted in a college, for which petitioner's presence is required, it is submitted. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner absconded after his release on bail. He could be arrested only after two years. In the meantime, he also committed various offences under Sections 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Two cases are registered against him involving offence under Section 307 IPC and two other cases under Section 379 IPC. There was a condition in the bail order that he shall not commit any offence while on bail, but he committed offences, in breach of the condition. 6. It is also pointed out that first accused was granted bail at the crime stage, but he did not abscond thereafter. He co- operated with the trial. The case of petitioner is different. He was granted bail, but he jumped bail. The third accused, who is similarly placed and who had absconded after grant of bail, was refused bail by this Court. If petitioner is granted bail, it is likely that the trial will be protracted. BA NO.3103/10 3 7. On hearing both sides, I find no reason to grant bail to petitioner at this stage of trial. It is likely that petitioner may abscond, if bail is granted. The crime is of the year 2006 and petitioner has a role in protracting the trial, having absconded for a long period of two years. The trial has already commenced. For all these reasons, I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioner at this stage. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs