Mohammed Basheer Pakkada vs Assistant Commissioner on 3 August, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2479 of 2007()


1. MOHAMMED BASHEER PAKKADA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :03/08/2007

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J
                       ------------------------------------
                      Crl.M.C.No.2479 of 2007
                       -------------------------------------
               Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2007

                                 O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution, inter alia, under

Section 135 of the Customs Act. The petitioner had entered

appearance and has taken part in the proceedings. 313 statement has

already been recorded. Subsequently because of the absence of the

petitioner, non bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the

petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, his absence was not wilful and

it was due to reasons beyond his control. The petitioner is willing to

appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail and co-

operate with the court for expeditious disposal of the case. The

petitioner apprehends that his application for bail may not be

considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law

and expeditiously. It is therefore prayed that directions under Section

482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner.

3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned

Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances

under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate.

I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not

Crl.M.C.No.2479 of 2007 2

consider such application on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously. 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 petitioner appears before the

learned Magistrate and applies 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/-

                 //True Copy //               PA to Judge

Crl.M.C.No.2479 of 2007   3