Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAREEM @ ABDUL KAREEM,S/O. MUHAMMED versus THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KAREEM @ ABDUL KAREEM,S/O. MUHAMMED v. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - Crl MC No. 2487 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 14883 (3 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2487 of 2007()

1. KAREEM @ ABDUL KAREEM,S/O. MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SMT.SHAIMA .U.

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :03/08/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.Nos.2487 & 2488 of 2007

Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2007

O R D E R

The common petitioner is the 2nd accused in two cases pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pattambi, both registered under Sections 454, 380 and 461 r/w 34 I.P.C. The petitioner had entered appearance in these two cases. But as he did not appear before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate has issued non bailable warrant to procure the presence of the petitioner. Coercive steps taken by the learned Magistrate are chasing the petitioner now.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner's absence was not wilful. He is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail, but he apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is therefore prayed that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner.

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. Crl.M.C.No.2487 & 2488 of 2007 2 I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider such application on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339].

3. These Crl.M.Cs are, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears 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 and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself.

4. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/- //true copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.2487 & 2488 of 2007 3


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.