Bail conditions and attached property violations justified refusal of regular bail after deliberate non-appearance and evasion of trial.

Regular bail was declined where the accused breached express bail conditions by selling immovable properties already under attachment and then failing to appear before the trial court. The record showed prior knowledge of the attachment, service of notices to vacate, and references to the attached properties in proceedings challenging the attachment order, making the plea of ignorance or illiteracy untenable. His non-appearance led to non-bailable warrants and declaration as a proclaimed offender. On these facts, the Court treated the conduct as deliberate non-compliance with bail terms and evasion of the trial process, so regular bail was not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in view of the alleged violation of bail conditions, sale of attached properties, and non-appearance before the trial court.

Analysis: The petitioner had earlier been granted the concession of bail on specific conditions, including that he would continue to avail the concession subject to the attachment or seizure of his immovable properties already identified by the Enforcement Directorate. The record showed that he was aware of the attachment, had received notices to vacate the properties, and had even referred to the concerned properties in proceedings against the attachment order. Despite this, he sold properties that were under attachment. The record also showed that he did not appear before the trial court after cancellation of bail, leading to issuance of non-bailable warrants and his declaration as a proclaimed offender. The Court found that the plea of ignorance or illiteracy was not credible in view of the documentary record and his conduct.

Conclusion: The petitioner had violated the conditions of bail and had intentionally avoided the trial process; regular bail was not justified.

---