Judgment :- 1. This is an application for bail, by toe 4th accused in Grime 134/87 of the Kothamangalam Police Station whose bail was cancelled by this court on 4-8-87. Thereafter, for six months he was able to keep himself away, and consequent on his remand to custody on 12-2-88, this application is moved. 2. Petitioner and seven others are alleged to have decoyed a young woman on 11-5-87, kept her in wrongful confinement for two days, and committed rape on her during that period. Sessions Judge by order dated 9-7-87 released petitioner on bail. Some other accused moved this court for bail, but bail was refused. Meanwhile, State moved this court for cancellation of bail granted to petitioner and others, by Crl. M. C. 542/87 and Crl. M.C. 543/87. State Prosecutor contended is those applications as that accused, if free, would tamper with evidence and cause detriment to investigation and pleaded vehemently for cancellation of bail. Petitioner appeared through counsel, and contested. 3. On 4-8-87, bail was cancelled, interalia, stating: "...accused set at liberty, will be arrested and committed to prison. This order will not preclude consideration of the issue on a later occasion". Notwithstanding the fact thai the order was passed on an application by the State urging compelling grounds, notwithstanding the fact that officers of investigating agency should have been aware of the order, notwithstanding the fact that petitioner appeared through counsel and was on bail with sureties, for six months petitioner was neither arrested nor did he surrender. 4. On 12-2-88, petitioner surrendered, and a few days later, this application was moved. In view of the unique features noticed in the preceding paragraph, I thought that State awed as explanation to this court for securing an order cancelling the bail, and then not giving effect to the order for six months. The fact that petitioner was able to move around freely was also intriguing. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Central Range was directed to enquire and report how it came to pass that no action was taken on the orders of this court. He called for a report from Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural. The fact that petitioner was able to move around freely was also intriguing. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Central Range was directed to enquire and report how it came to pass that no action was taken on the orders of this court. He called for a report from Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural. Superintendent of Police reported that he was,: "convinced, all efforts were made to honour the orders of the Hon'ble High Court." If Superintendent of Police or anyone else who was in charge of investigation, or who had a duty to oversee investigation had made any effort in six months, they could have done what the Dy. Inspect or General could do in a few days, namely to get the remaining accused arrested. Dy. Inspector General, apparently not satisfied with the report of Superintendent of Police, and rightly too, enquired into the matter himself and ordered suspension of the Asst. Sub Inspector in charge of the case and charge sheeted him. 5. I regret to say that those in charge of the case displayed a sense of levity and lack of sense of accountability which behoves every public servant. Investigating officer was duty bound to carry out the orders of this court, secured on a petition by him. I am told that there it a Laison Officer from the Police Department attached to the office of State Prosecutor, whose duty is to keep track all cases concerning that office. Even now I am told that charge sheet has not been filed, though ten months have passed after the alleged occurence. This does not reflect a healthy or wholesome state of affairs. 6. If superior officers, oversee investigation as they are bound to, such serious lapses could be avoided. Periodical inspections by Superintendents of Police and random scrutiny of case diaries and quality of investigation, are imperative. Elaborate provisions are made in this regard, in the Police Manual. For example, Chapters XIV, XV, XVI of Kerala Police Manual, Volume II deal with duties of superior officers, scrutiny of diaries and inspections. Para 380 requires 'constant supervision by Superintendents of Police, over investigation and detection of crimes.' Para 383 highlights the need to examine case diaries. Elaborate provisions are made in this regard, in the Police Manual. For example, Chapters XIV, XV, XVI of Kerala Police Manual, Volume II deal with duties of superior officers, scrutiny of diaries and inspections. Para 380 requires 'constant supervision by Superintendents of Police, over investigation and detection of crimes.' Para 383 highlights the need to examine case diaries. Para 49 deals with inspection by Superintendents of Police of units under them, with stress on "detailed scrutiny of selected records and aspects of work." Like responsibilities are imposed on officers from the rank of Circle Inspector to Inspector General of Police. Slackening in this area can produce disasterous consequences. Spate of cases, that come before this court complaining of failure to investigate into cases, give insight into the picture. In most of such cases, superior officers have no knowledge of the happenings. Whenever their attention has been called to such cases, amends have been made. The situation must be mended, so that supervisory officers are in a position to glean the happenings and monitor the functioning of investigating officers, Institutional perspectives must prevail in these areas. 7. I am told that Kothamangalam Police Station had net been inspected by the Superintendent of Police in two years. I am also told that this is not the only instance in point. I hope that the Government and higher officers of the Department will take remedial measures and ensure the machinery is put in good order, realising the need for supervision and control in an area which will determine the image of the Department. 8. Back to the prayer for bail petitioner is not entitled to an order in his favour. Those who seek redress at the hands of the court should come with clean hands. After keeping away from the process of law for as long as he could, petitioner cannot seek assistance of this court to defeat its own orders or cause detriment to public justice. By his conduct petitioner has disentitled himself to relief. If inspite of an order cancelling bail petitioner could keep away, and perhaps tamper with evidence, it would net be unreasonable to think that fortified with bail he would not hesitate to tamper with evidence or abscond. In these circumstances, application for bail is dismissed.