IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6583 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.318/2008 of SPL.J.M.F.C. FOR TRIAL OF MARADU CASES, KOZHIKODE .................... (SC NO. 555/2003 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL FOR MARADU CASES) KOZHIKODE) PETITIONER/ACCSUED NO.70: -------------------- ASLAM, S/O.HASSAN, (ACCUSED NO.70) ABOOBACKERAKATH VEEDU MARD BY ADV. SRI.S.GIRISH SRI.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CBCIC, KOZHIKODE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 6583 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008. ORDER Petition for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 120D, 153A, 143, 147, 148, 302, 449, 307, 326, 324, 435 and 448 of the IPC, Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 25(1)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act. Petitioner is accused no.70 in the crime (Marad Case). He is in custody from 5.7.2003 onwards for the past more than 5 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 136 accused were granted bail and out of this 89 persons are released on bail on their executing bond. Therefore, petitioner may also be released on bail on the same conditions, it is submitted. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case is at the fag end of the trial and it is posted for pronouncing judgment on 29.11.2008. It is true that the co-accused were granted bail by this Court and it was after examination of the witnesses was over also. [B.A.No.6583/08] 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if bail is granted it may be on the same conditions imposed as per order dated 19.12.2007 in B.A.No.7160 of 2007 and also by imposing an additional condition to surrender the passport of the petitioner before the trial court. 5. 4. On hearing both sides, I find that after having granted bail to so many accused, that too after completion of the examination of witnesses, there may not be any justifiable reason to refuse bail to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is granted bail on the same conditions as imposed in order dated 19.12.2007 in B.A.No.7160 of 2007, which are as follows: 1) Petitioner shall execute bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with three solvent sureties, of which one must be a blood relative of the petitioner, and the remaining two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge. 2) The petitioner shall reside at a place to be specified by him even before he is released on bail within 3 kms. of the Court building of the Special Judge until [B.A.No.6583/08] 3 the judgment is pronounced finally. 3) At least one of the sureties shall be present with the accused at all times. The sureties, or any one of them, shall bring the accused to the Court on every date of posting and taking him from the Court to the place of residence. 4) The petitioner shall not travel to any other place except from Court to the place of residence and from the place of residence to the Court accompanied by the sureties or any one of them. 5) The petitioner shall not meet, contact or interact with any one other than his counsel or close relatives i.e. parents, spouses, children or siblings or any other person the Special Judge may approve on his request. A statement shall be filed by the petitioner of all such persons, whom he want to meet and interact with while he is on bail as per this order, prior to his release which shall be considered and approved by the learned Special Judge. 6) The petitioner and his sureties shall undertake that the petitioner shall be present before Court on all date of [B.A.No.6583/08] 4 posting. They shall further undertake that if for any reasons – justifiable or otherwise, they are not present before Court to enable the court to proceed with the arguments, hearing on the question of sentence or delivery of judgment, such steps or any other steps remaining in the case can be undertaken without their presence exempting them from their personal appearance. An affidavit of undertaking to that effect shall be filed by the petitioner. In such affidavit, he shall undertake that in the unlikely event of their absence from Court from any reasons justifiable or otherwise, the Court can proceed with the trial in their absence while simultaneously initiating coercive process against him. It is directed that the Court shall be at liberty to proceed hereafter assuming that the petitioner is present before Court. Such an extraordinary direction appears to be necessary in the interests of justice and for orderly further progress of the case without interruption and to allay the apprehension aired by the learned D.G.P. [B.A.No.6583/08] 5 7) The State shall be at liberty to place police surveillance of the petitioner while he is only bail. The State has the duty to ensure that his movement are monitored and any attempt to commit breach of the obligations under this order is not permitted to take place. Alertly the State has to ensure hat these conditions are complied with. 8) The petitioner shall also surrender his passport and in case the petitioner is not in possession of the passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect before the trial court within 7 days from the date date of release of the petitioner on bail. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs. [B.A.No.6583/08] 6