ANEESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PUBLIC Prosecutor takes notice for respondent.

(2.) PETITIONERS are accused in Crime No.1222 of 2010 of Vadakara Police Station for offences punishable under Section 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode granted them bail as per Annexure-1, order dated 09.12.2010 in Crl.M.C.No.1602 of 2010 subject to conditions including that petitioners shall report to the Investigating Officer on all days till filing of final report, that they shall not enter the Vadakara Taluk without permission of the court except for compliance with the condition regarding appearance before the Investigating Officer and that petitioners shall not involve in any criminal case. While so, the Sub Inspector, Vadakara filed C.M.P.No.480 of 2011 before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakara requesting to cancel the bail alleging that petitioners got involved in Crime Nos.1344 and 1345 of 2010 for various offences and that they failed to report to the Investigating Officer as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Magistrate after hearing both sides cancelled the bail as per Annexure-3, order dated 27.01.2011. Learned counsel submits that so far petitioners have not been taken to custody pursuant to Annexure-3, order. It is contended that learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to cancel the bail granted by learned Sessions Judge even on the allegations made by the Sub Inspector in C.M.P.No.480 of 2011. It is also contended that learned Sessions Judge was not correct in imposing a condition that petitioners shall not involve in any criminal case as that gave ample opportunity to the Police to register even a petty case against petitioners falsely and request the court to cancel the bail. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also.