The petitioner, Thirumali Kumar, who is an accused in C.C.Nos.2168 of 2004 and 2169 of 2004 and in C.P.No.24 of 2009, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class I, Ernakulam, seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, respectively in B.A.Nos.7819 of 2009, 7837 of 2009 and 7818 of 2009.

2. The crimes were registered in the year 2004. The offences alleged against the petitioner (first accused) in C.C.No.2168 of 2004 are under Sections 454 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that the accused persons committed theft of gold ornaments from the house of the de facto complainant on 12.12.1996. In C.C.No.2169 of 2004, the petitioner is the second accused. The offences alleged against the accused therein are under Sections 454, 461 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the accused persons committed theft of gold ornaments and other articles from the house of the de facto complainant on 28.6.1998.

3. C.P.No.24 of 2009 relates to Crime No.154 of 2004. The petitioner is accused No.4 therein. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that on 30.7.2004, the accused persons were found making preparations for committing decoity.

4. In all the aforesaid cases, the petitioner was released on bail at the crime stage. After completing investigation, final reports were filed before the court having jurisdiction. The petitioner failed to appear before court. Warrant was issued for the arrest of the petitioner on several occasions. Steps were taken under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner. C.P.No.24 of 2009 was removed to the long pending register. For more than five years, the petitioner was absconding. Warrants were repeatedly issued by the learned Magistrate for the arrest of the petitioner. The police used to file reports stating that the petitioner was not found and therefore, he could not be arrested. On 30.9.2009, the learned Magistrate passed an order in C.C.No.2169 of 2004, which reads thus:

"I take notice that in the Malayala Manorama daily dated today, there is an article which shows that the 2nd accused in this case, Thirumalai Kumar, is now residing in a village at Tamil Nadu, which is known by the name 'Thiruttu Gramam'. The photo of thataccused is also printed in the newspaper. It is also reported that he is the village head of that village. Hence issue nbw against A2 through the City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam. The City Police Commissioner is directed to arrest the 2nd accused and produce him before the Court before 30.10.09. If necessary, he shall seek assistance of the Tamil Nadu police for execution of the warrant. Adjourned to 30.10.09."

More or less similar orders were passed in the other two cases as well.

5. The petitioner was arrested and he was produced before the learned Magistrate. He moved for bail. The learned Magistrate dismissed the Bail Applications by the orders dated 18.11.2009 and 21.11.2009. The petitioner moved the Sessions Court for bail in all the three cases. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the applications by the order dated 17.12.2009. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge held that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of his absconding. The learned Sessions Judge, however, directed the learned Magistrate to ensure speedy trial of the case within six months and to complete the committal proceedings in C.P.No.24 of 2009 at the earliest.

6. However, the learned Sessions Judge criticized the learned Magistrate (Sri.Ijas.A., Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ernakulam) for issuing direction to the police on the basis of the press reports. The learned Sessions Judge held thus:

"There is no dispute that the petitioner, who is hailing from Tamilnadu, is an absconding accused for the past more than five years i