Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DINESH S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 32 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


DINESH S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 32 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 163 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 1522 (19 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 163 of 2007()

1. DINESH S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 32 YEARS,
... Petitioner

2. KUMARAN S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 34 YEARS,

Vs

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

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALATHUR POLICE

For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :19/01/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.163 of 2007

Dated this the 19th day of January, 2007

ORDER

The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under Sections 341, 323 and 427 read with 34 I.P.C. The petitioners had entered appearance and were enlarged on bail. But on 13.10.06, the date on which the case was posted for trial, the petitioners could not appear on account of compelling reasons. No witnesses were also present, it is submitted. But the learned Magistrate rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioners by their counsel and proceeded to issue non bailable warrants against the petitioners. The petitioners have come to this Court apprehending that if they surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail, their application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law, on merits and expeditiously.

2. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider their application for bail to be filed by the petitioners on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. All the offences are shown to be bailable and it is submitted before me that the accused were represented by the counsel who had made an application also. It is also pointed out that no witness was present. In these circumstances, I am certainly of the opinion that there is no Crl.M.C.No.163 of 2007 2 reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the prayer of the petitioners for bail in accordance with law. 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. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. But with the specific observation that if the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and apply 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.

(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.