Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHINU KOSHY,THOMPIL HOUSE,MANGARAM versus STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SHINU KOSHY,THOMPIL HOUSE,MANGARAM v. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE - Crl MC No. 1940 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 10519 (18 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1940 of 2007()

1. SHINU KOSHY,THOMPIL HOUSE,MANGARAM,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :18/06/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C.No.1940 of 2007

Dated this the 18th day of June 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sections 279 and 304(A) I.P.C. He was enlarged on bail from the police station at the stage of investigation. Thereafter, he has not received any information of the filing of the final report or the taking of the cognizance against him. He was employed abroad. He now finds himself facing the unenviable predicament of a warrant of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate chasing him. The case against him has been transferred to the list of long pending cases also. The petitioner is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail but he apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. He has therefore come to this court with the prayer that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be isued. Crl.M.C.No.1940/07 2

2. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate, the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner 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 been issued in Alice George vs.Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339].

3. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case 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. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.1940/07 3 Crl.M.C.No.1940/07 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007


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.