NIYAS Vs. THE S.I. OF POLICE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against Annexure A9 order dated 4.1.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner/2nd accused in crime No. 78 of 2007 of Cumbummettu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act and Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act.

(2.) THE allegation against the accused persons was that on 11.6.2007 they were found transporting spirit in 16 jerry cans each having a capacity of 35 litres in a Maruthi car bearing registration No. KL 5 W 5232 at Cumbummettu. On 14.8.2007 the Sessions Judge granted bail to the petitioner and the 1st accused. It was a default bail, since no charge sheet was filed within the time permitted under Section 167 Cr.P.C. One of the conditions of the bail order was that they should report before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Thursdays between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. till the filing of the final report. Both the accused persons were actually released on 16.8.2007. On 29.4.2009 the J.F.C.M, Nedumkandom reported that the 2nd accused (the petitioner herein) had failed to comply with the conditions in the bail order. Thereupon the learned Sessions Judge as per order dated 14.5.2009 cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and decided to proceed against the sureties. The said order is challenged before this Court in Crl.M.C. No. 2369/2009. This Court as per order dated 19.8.2009 allowed the Crl.M.C holding that the bail was cancelled without notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge again issued notice to the petitioner for cancellation of the bail and to show -cause why the bail should not be cancelled. The petitioner did not respond to the notice. Warrants were also issued against him but of no avail. When notice was given to his Counsel, the Counsel submitted that the accused was laid up with Jaundice and was unable to attend the court. He was, therefore, directed to produce medical certificate and the case was posted to 9.12.2009. On that day the Counsel also remained absent. No medical certificate was produced. On 10.12.2009 the Counsel filed a memo reporting "no instructions". Since the repeated notices issued to the petitioner returned unserved reporting that he was absconding and Investigating Officer also filed a report to the effect that he was absconding, the learned Sessions Judge held that he was willfully evading service and that he having violated the bail conditions, forfeited his right to be on bail. Accordingly, as per Annexure A9 impugned order dated 4.1.2010, the Sessions Judge cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner. It is the said order which is assailed in this Crl.M.C. I see no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the court below. The petitioner has been playing hide and seek. He has flouted the bail conditions and did not respond to the notices and warrants issued by the court below. His Counsel also was not acting as a responsible officer of the Court. The bail was rightly cancelled and the order does not call for any interference. It is needless to say that in case the petitioner is arrested and committed to custody, he can file a fresh bail application, which will certainly be disposed of on merits by the court below in accordance with law.