Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VENUGOPALA PILLAI, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


VENUGOPALA PILLAI, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 3984 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 2877 (7 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3984 of 2006()

1. VENUGOPALA PILLAI, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :07/12/2006

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C.NO.3984 OF 2006

Dated this the 7th day of December, 2006.

ORDER

I have gone through the petition. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 8(1) & (2) of the Kerala Abkari Act. Investigation is complete. Final report has been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The matter is pending before the learned Magistrate as C.P.No.32 of 2006. The petitioner was allegedly not aware of the proceedings initiated against him. Therefore he did not appear before the learned Magistrate. He finds himself in the unenviable predicament of a warrant of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate chasing him. He is now willing and wants to surrender before the learned Magistrate, but he apprehends that the learned Magistrate may not grant bail to him. In these circumstances, it is prayed that directions may be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail when he appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail.

2. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear Crl.M.C.NO.3984 OF 2006 2 before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339].

3. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. But with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.