Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BASURA DEVI AND ORS versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BASURA DEVI and Ors v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl MC No. 1149 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 7497 (11 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1149 of 2007()

1. BASURA DEVI & OTHERS
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.C.J.JOY

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :11/04/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 1149 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 11th day of April, 2007

O R D E R

The first petitioner, a woman, faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 379 r/e. 511 I.P.C. She was released on bail on the suretyship of petitioners 2 and 3. The first petitioner was allegedly appearing before the learned Magistrate regularly till 12.10.2006. But on that day the first petitioner did not appear and her counsel, it is submitted, could not reach the court in time to file a proper application for exemption. The bail bond has been cancelled and notice has been ordered to petitioners 2 and 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate. The petitioners apprehend that the application of the first petitioner may not be considered by the learned Magistrate and petitioners 2 and 3 may not be permitted to continue as sureties.

2. It is certainly for the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which the first petitioner could not earlier Crl.M.C.No. 1149 of 2007 2 appear before the learned Magistrate and make a proper application for bail. It is for them to persuade the learned Magistrate to accept petitioners 2 and 3 to continue as sureties. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider their request on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary.

3. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed, but subject to the above observations/directions. I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must consider the application of the first petitioner for bail and proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. The learned Magistrate must also consider the request of the petitioners to permit petitioners 2 and 3 to continue as sureties and pass appropriate orders.

4. Hand over copy of the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


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.