JEEVANKUMART Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner faces the allegations, inter alia, under Secs.457 and 427 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. Proceedings were initiated on the basis of a private complaint which was referred to the police under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. A crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. In the meantime, the petitioner surrendered before the learned Magistrate and sought bail. Bail was granted subject to conditions. One of the conditions, it is submitted, was that the petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer on 2/4/07. The direction was to appear before the Investigating Officer only on that one day.

(2.) The petitioner did not allegedly appear before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer promptly filed a report dated 3/4/07 before the learned Magistrate complaining about the breach of the condition by the petitioner. Thereupon, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, bail granted was cancelled and a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the course adopted by the learned Magistrate is most unjustified. The petitioner had actually appeared at the Police Station on 2/4/07. But a Police Constable on duty had sent the petitioner away stating that his presence is not required. It was not a case of the petitioner not appearing at all. He further submits that the learned Magistrate erred grossly in cancelling the bail swallowing an assertion made by the police without and before giving the petitioner an opportunity to know the allegation and to controvert the same. Principles of natural justice had not been followed by the learned Magistrate before cancelling the bail, it is urged.