High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
M.SUBASH, S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 2098 of 2007  RD-KL 11585 (29 June 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl MC No. 2098 of 2007()
1. M.SUBASH, S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN,
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
O R D E R
R.BASANT, JCrl.M.C.No.2098 of 2007
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2007
O R D E RPetitioner 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
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.