IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 7859 of 2009 CRIME NO.165 OF 2007 OF ARYANCODE POLICE STATION RE-REGISTERED AS CRIME NO.7/CR/08/TVM/CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/9TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ S.VINOD KUMAR, S.S.V.BHAVAN, CHILAMBARA, MANCHAMCODE P.C., NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, RPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED: V.Y.SREEKUMAR, N.V.BUNGLOW, VALIYAVAZHI, KEZHAROOR VILLAGE, OTTASEKHARA MANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.3.2010 IN CRL.M.A.NO.544 OF 2010. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, ALONG WITH BA NO.7860 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NOS.7859 & 7860 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 O R D E R These are applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. S.Vinod Kumar is the petitioner in both these Bail Applications. B.A.No.7859 of 2009 relates to Crime No.165 of 2007 of Aryancode Police Station, in which, the petitioner is accused No.9. B.A.No.7860 of 2009 relates to Crime No.84 of 2007 of Aryancode Police Station, in which, the petitioner is accused No.5. 2. In Crime No.165 of 2007, the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. In Crime No.84 of 2007, the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Applications came up for hearing on 8.2.2010, the following order was passed: B.A. NOS.7859 & 7860 OF 2009 :: 2 :: “The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the wedding of the cousin brother of the petitioner is to be solemnised on Thursday the 11th February, 2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Bail Application may be adjourned for a week and the interim order may be extended. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, who has filed an application for impleading submitted that the petitioner is making all preparations to go abroad under the cover of the interim order. 3. In the facts and circumstances, there will be a direction to the petitioner to surrender his passport before the Investigating Officer within two days. If the petitioner does not hold an Indian Passport, an affidavit sworn to by him and duly attested shall be produced before the Investigating Officer within two days. If the petitioner fails to comply with the direction, the interim order will stand cancelled automatically without further orders. Post after 10 days. The undertaking not to arrest the petitioner will continue to be in force till then, if the petitioner complies with the direction to surrender the passport.” B.A. NOS.7859 & 7860 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 4. The petitioner did not comply with the direction in the order dated 8.2.2010. Later, attempt was made to withdraw the Bail Applications. Thereupon, order dated 10.3.2010 was passed, which reads as follows: “In these Bail Applications, an order was passed on 8/2/2010 directing the petitioner to surrender his passport within two days. It was also stated in the order that if the petitioner failed to comply with the direction, the interim order would stand cancelled automatically without further orders. The order dated 8/2/2010 was passed on the basis of the submission made by the counsel appearing for the de facto complainant that under the cover of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner was about to leave India. At the same time, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had to attend the wedding of his cousin on 11th February, 2010 was also taken note of and accordingly the direction not to arrest the petitioner was issued on a condition that he should surrender his passport within two days. The petitioner did not comply with the direction to surrender the passport. Naturally, the investigating officer should have arrested the petitioner. But, it was not done. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested in respect of B.A. NOS.7859 & 7860 OF 2009 :: 4 :: another crime on the basis of the warrant pending against the petitioner and later, he was released on bail. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant that the order dated 8/2/2010 was shown by the petitioner to the learned Magistrate and on that ground bail was granted. 2. An attempt was made to withdraw the Bail Applications without disclosing that the petitioner had violated the terms of the order dated 8/2/2010 and had gone abroad. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor will get instructions as to why the petitioner was not arrested, after his failure to comply with the interim order dated 8/2/2010. Post on 29/3/2010.” 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that steps have been taken to impound the passport of the petitioner. This submission is recorded. The petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief, he having virtually defeated the orders passed by this Court. B.A. NOS.7859 & 7860 OF 2009 :: 5 :: In the facts and circumstances, the Bail Applications are dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/