Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.M.MOIDU, S/O MARACKAR versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.M.MOIDU, S/O MARACKAR v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 2664 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 16179 (21 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2664 of 2007()

1. K.M.MOIDU, S/O MARACKAR,
... Petitioner

2. MOHANDAS, S/O PRABHAKARA MENON,

3. SUNDARAN, S/O APPUNNI,

4. ARUN, S/O ACHUTHAN,

5. SALAM, S/O MUHAMMAD,

6. RAJEEVAN, S/O KUTTAPPAN,

7. BIJU, S/O VIJAYAN, MANGADAN,

8. UDAYAKUMARAN, S/O RAGHAVAN,

9. SARASWATHY P., W/O MURALI,

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.D.SREEKUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :21/08/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.2664 of 2007

Dated this the 21st day of August, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 283 r/w 149 I.P.C. The petitioners are accused 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17 and 21. According to the petitioners, on a date when their presence was absolutely not essential even though they were represented by counsel, the learned Magistrate rejected the application to excuse their absence and issued non bailable warrants to the accused and sureties. The petitioners are willing to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek bail. But they submit that issue of non bailable warrants is causing unnecessary harassment and embarrassment to them. They pray that appropriate directions may be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. I have perused the order sheet. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. I have seen the averments in this Crl.M.C. I have also gone through the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I have considered all relevant circumstances. I am satisfied that directions deserve to be issued in favour of the petitioners. Crl.M.C.No.2664 of 2007 2

3. This Crl.M.C is accordingly allowed. There shall be a direction that the warrants of arrest issued against the petitioners and the notice issued to the sureties shall not be proceeded with. The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate on or before 03.09.07. If they appear on that date, the learned Magistrate shall drop all further proceedings and permit them to continue to be on bail and to appear in the matter. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/- Crl.M.C.No.2664 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.