Judgment : 1 The submissions made by Mr. C.D. Johnson, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr. S. Baskar, learned counsel representing Ram and Ram, counsel on record for the respondent were heard. The materials available on record were also perused. 2 The petitioner in the criminal revision case is the third accused in C.C. No. 414 of 2003, which is pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate - I, Thiruppur. The said calendar case came to be taken on file based on the complaint of the respondent herein against the petitioner herein and two other persons for an alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said offence being a bailable one, a summon was initially issued and on service of summons, the petitioner appeared in the trial court through his counsel on 30.6.2003. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C which was also allowed by the trial court. When the calendar case stood posted for trial on 15.12.2003, the petitioner who figures as third accused in the calendar case, filed a petition seeking discharge and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. 3 Following the dismissal of the said discharge petition, the petitioner, invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, moved Criminal Original Petition No. 25024 of 2004 on the file of this court for quashing the complaint. This Court, after hearing, dismissed the said criminal original petition with a direction to the trial Court to complete the trial and dispose of the calendar case expeditiously and at any cost, not later than six months from the date of the order of this court passed in the above said criminal original petition. The said order of this court came to be passed on 22.12.2004. Even thereafter, the petitioner (accused No. 3) avoided appearing before the trial Court; his counsel also did not appear on his behalf and thereby the trial of the case was held up for about three more years. 4 On 24.9.2007, the trial Court issued a warrant for his arrest and production to face the trial. As the petitioner had gone go Mumbai, the warrant was sent to L.T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai for execution. 4 On 24.9.2007, the trial Court issued a warrant for his arrest and production to face the trial. As the petitioner had gone go Mumbai, the warrant was sent to L.T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai for execution. But the same was at the first instance returned with an endorsement that the warrant could not be executed since the petitioner (A3) had gone to China. Subsequently, with the endorsement of the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, on the warrant issued by the trial Court, the police officials attached to L.T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai were able to arrest the petitioner on 19.4.2008 and produced him before a Metropolitan Magistrate in Mumbai, whereupon he was released on bail with a direction to appear before the trial Court on 21.4.2008. Though the petitioner did appear in the trial court on 21.4.2008, he also filed an application in Crl. M.P. No. 3321 of 2008 for his release on bail under Section 436 Cr.P.C, as his appearance was pursuant to the issuance of Warrant. On the same day, the trial Court passed an order releasing the petitioner on bail subject to four conditions, which are as follows: “ 1. The petitioner is ordered to be released on Bail on his executing the bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- together with 2 sureties for a likesome. 2. The petitioner shall appear and sign before this court daily by 10.30 a.m. until further orders. 3. The petitioner shall surrender his passport before this court within 3 days from the date of this order. 4. The petitioner should surrender his son, the 2nd accused herein and take steps to recall the warrant within 15 days as per the undertaking given by the counsel. ” 5 The petitioner did not choose to challenge the order imposing such conditions. On the other hand, accepting the said conditions, the petitioner executed a bond and got released on bail subject to the above conditions. However, subsequent to such release, he did not comply with the conditions and again he failed to attend the court on the hearing dates, which prompted the respondent herein/complainant to file a petition under Section 446 -A Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail. The same was taken on file by the trial court as Crl. However, subsequent to such release, he did not comply with the conditions and again he failed to attend the court on the hearing dates, which prompted the respondent herein/complainant to file a petition under Section 446 -A Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail. The same was taken on file by the trial court as Crl. M.P. No. 3761 of 2008 and after hearing, the learned trial judge allowed the petition and cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by the said court in its earlier order dated 21.4.2008. The order of cancellation of bail dated 30.5.2008 is the subject matter of challenge in the present criminal revision case. 6 The petitioner, who figures as accused No. 3 in the above said case had been successfully dragging on the case for more than seven years. At the first instance he made an attempt to have him discharged from the said criminal case by filing a discharge petition, which came to be dismissed. As a second attempt he filed a quash petition before this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C which also came to be dismissed in 2004 itself with a direction to the trial court to complete the trial within six months from the date of order of this court. Thereafter, the petitioner disappeared and he had to be brought out of his hiding place in Mumbai by issuing a warrant and executing it through the police in Mumbai. The petitioner, after arrest in execution of the said warrant, was produced before a Magistrate in Mumbai, whereupon he was released with direction to appear before the trial court on the next hearing date, namely 21.4.2008. On 21.4.2008, the petitioner appeared before the trial court only in obedience to the warrant and the consequent direction given by the Magistrate in Mumbai. Thereafter he had to move a bail application and the same was allowed and he was released on bail subject to the above mentioned conditions. 7 Even though the offence is a bailable one, when once the accused misuses the liberty, the court can impose conditions for his further release. Such course of action was adopted by the learned trial court Magistrate. Even such an order was not challenged by invoking the powers of the Sessions Court or the High court under Section 439 (l)(b) Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the petitioner was very much keen on his release on bail. Such course of action was adopted by the learned trial court Magistrate. Even such an order was not challenged by invoking the powers of the Sessions Court or the High court under Section 439 (l)(b) Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the petitioner was very much keen on his release on bail. Hence, without murmuring, he got him released on bail by executing a bond incorporating the above said conditions. But, once he was released on bail, he again showed his colour by disappearing. Till date he is at large and his whereabouts are not known. Under such circumstances alone the respondent had to approach the trial court for an order cancelling the bail and the trial Court rightly passed an order cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner. No defect or infirmity is found in the said order of the learned trial Magistrate warranting interference by this court in exercise of its revisional power. There is no merit in this criminal revision case and the same deserves to be dismissed. 8 Accordingly, this criminal revision case is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.