Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AJI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.THANKACHAN versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


AJI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.THANKACHAN v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - Crl MC No. 1221 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 7771 (13 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1221 of 2007()

1. AJI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.THANKACHAN,
... Petitioner

2. SANIL, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.PODIAN,

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :13/04/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.1221 of 2007

Dated this the 13th day of April, 2007

ORDER

The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution, inter alia, under Section 308 I.P.C. Proceedings are now pending before the committal court. The petitioners have not appeared before the learned Magistrate. According to them, they have satisfactory reasons to explain why they could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. Warrants of arrest have been issued by the learned Magistrate against the petitioners. They apprehend that the learned Magistrate would not consider their applications for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. The petitioners, in these circumstances, pray that directions 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.

2. 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 applications for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider such applications on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Crl.M.C.No.1221 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].

3. 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.

4. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(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.