Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VARGHESE @ KUTTICHAN versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


VARGHESE @ KUTTICHAN v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl MC No. 2586 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 15830 (16 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2586 of 2007()

1. VARGHESE @ KUTTICHAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :16/08/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C.No.2586 of 2007

Dated this the 16th day of August 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioner has received summons to appear before the learned Magistrate on 18/8/2007.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He is not responsible for the investigating officers not arresting him during the pendency of the investigation. The petitioner has not received summons to appear and shall appear on 18/8/2007. 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that the learned Magistrate is bound to consider the application in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1) KLT 22]. Crl.M.C.No.2586/07 2

3. 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].

4. 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.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.2586/07 3 Crl.M.C.No.2586/07 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.