THOMAS V C Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner, who is the first accused in Crime No. 321/2007 of Erattupetta Police Station, challenges the Order dated 19/04/2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kottayam allowing CMP 799/2008 filed by the investigating officer for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Crime No. 321/2007 of Erattupetta Police Station was initially registered at the instance of the de facto complainant, who is the wife of the revision petitioner / first accused. Initially, the aforesaid crime was registered for offences punishable under S.450, S.363, S.354 and S.395 IPC against the revision petitioner and others. During the course of investigation, the Circle Inspector of Police, Erattupetta deleted S.450, S.363 and S.395 IPC, but added S.498(A), S.354 and S.427 read with S.34 IPC. At that stage, the revision petitioner filed CMP No. 2469/2007 before the Sessions Court, Kottayam seeking anticipatory bail and as per order dated 09/11/2007, the Sessions Court granted bail for a period of one month before the expiry of which he was directed to appear before the Magistrate and seek regular bail. Thereafter the revision petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and obtained regular bail for the aforementioned offences. Alleging that the Circle Inspector of Police, Erattupetta was not conducting the investigation properly and that his investigation was partisan, the de facto complainant filed WP (C) 29856/2007 before this Court seeking a direction for investigation by another police officer. On 10/01/2008, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam to entrust the investigation to another police officer. Thereafter the investigation was entrusted with the Circle Inspector of Police, Kottayam East Police Station. During the subsequent investigation by the Circle Inspector of Kottayam East Police Station, the offences which were deleted by the previous investigating officer were again incorporated rendering the case one involving graver offences. It was after the restoration of the offences punishable under S.450, S.363, S.354 and S.394 IPC that the investigating officer moved the Sessions Court by filing CMP 799/2008 for cancellation of the bail. The said application was allowed by the Sessions Court, as per the impugned order dated 19/04/2008 after hearing both sides.