Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANILKUMAR, S/O.KUNJIRAMAN versus THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ANILKUMAR, S/O.KUNJIRAMAN v. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Crl MC No. 992 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 6360 (28 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 992 of 2007()

1. ANILKUMAR, S/O.KUNJIRAMAN,
... Petitioner

2. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN,

Vs

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :28/03/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.992 of 2007

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2007

ORDER

The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution, inter alia, under Section 379 I.P.C and Section 4 of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957. The petitioners were earlier released on bail. But consequent to their non appearance, the learned Magistrate has issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioners to procure their presence. The case has now been transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases also.

2. The petitioners now want to appear before the learned Magistrate. They apprehend that their application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. The petitioners therefore pray that a direction may be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C to the learned Magistrate to release them on bail when they appear and apply for bail.

3. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which they could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate must consider such application for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider such application on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Crl.M.C.No.992 of 2007 2 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].

4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. But with the specific observation that if the petitioners surrender 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.