Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.L. NAVIS, AGED 66 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.L. NAVIS, AGED 66 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl MC No. 2524 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 15125 (7 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2524 of 2007()

1. P.L. NAVIS, AGED 66 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.BABU CHERUKARA

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :07/08/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C. No.2524 OF 2007

Dated this the 7th day of August, 2007

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Sec.225(b) of the IPC. The trial is over. The matter stood posted for judgment. On two occasions the petitioner did not appear and applied to excuse his absence. The court indulgently allowed those requests. But on the third occasion, when the request was repeated, the petition was dismissed and a non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. That warrant of arrest is now chasing the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His failure/omission to appear before the learned Magistrate was not wilful. In these circumstances, the petitioner is now willing to appear before the learned Magistrate and receive the judgment. But the petitioner apprehends that when he appears and applies for bail, his application may not be Crl.M.C. No.2524 OF 2007 -: 2 :- considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. The judgment may not be pronounced on that day. Consequently, he may be remanded to custody. He may be compelled to remain in custody unnecessarily.

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 have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioner's application for regular bail on merits in accordance with law and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339).

3. The case now stands posted to 8/8/07. The petitioner can appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. If the judgment is ready, the learned Magistrate must pronounce and pass appropriate orders on the application for bail and also application for suspension of sentence, if any, such sentence be imposed.

4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the Crl.M.C. No.2524 OF 2007 -: 3 :- above directions and the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks 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.

5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge


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.