Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.SUBASH, S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.SUBASH, S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 2098 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 11585 (29 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2098 of 2007()

1. M.SUBASH, S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :29/06/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.2098 of 2007

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2007

O R D E R

Petitioner is accused No.30 in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 307, 353 and 332 read with 149 I.P.C. Some of the co-accused who faced trial have already been found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioner was not available to face trial along with the co-accused in such trial. Those accused were acquitted on the ground that there was no evidence to identify them as some of the miscreants involved in the incident which had taken place.

2. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a request to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The co-accused having secured acquittal on the ground that they were not properly identified, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the chance of the petitioner being identified is also remote. There is no chance of this prosecution coming to successful culmination. The possibility of conviction being bleak, the proceedings may be quashed. This in short is the prayer.

3. I am of the opinion that the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted. In the trials held against the co-accused, the petitioner was not present. There was no question or necessity of the prosecution adducing any evidence with regard to the complicity of Crl.M.C.No.2098 of 2007 2 the petitioner in such trials. The possibility of some of the witnesses identifying the petitioner in the trial to be held against him cannot be ruled out by this Court rationally on the basis of the materials presently available. If that be so, the petitioner's claim for quashing of proceedings must be held to be not justified at all. The decision of the Full Bench in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (supra) concludes the question squarely.

4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner appears before the learned Sessions Judge and applies for bail, there may be a direction that such application must be considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is further prayed that on such appearance, an expeditious disposal of the case may also be directed.

6. The accused has not so far appeared and I think it is absolutely unnecessary to issue any such speculative directions. Needless to say, when the petitioner appears and applies, his application for bail will have to be considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. His prayer for expeditious disposal will also have to be considered by the learned Magistrate and appropriate orders passed.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/- Crl.M.C.No.2098 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.