IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6046 of 2006()
1. ABDUL BASHEER @ HASSAN @ KALA BASHEER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES
Dated :17/10/2006
O R D E R
J.M.JAMES, J.
--------------
B.A. 6046/2006
------------------
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2006
O R D E R
The petitioner is accused in C.C.No.1291/2005
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I,
Karunagappally, for the offence punishable under Section
420 IPC. The petitioner was arrested in crime
No.170/2006 of Vattiyoorkavu police station,
Thiruvananthapuram, on 30.7.2006. As C.C.No.1291/2005
had originated basing on crime No.102/CR/KLM/04 of
CBCID, Kollam, the arrest of the petitioner was recorded
by the Investigating Officer in that crime on 22.9.2006.
The petitioner is before this Court, for an order under
Section 439 Cr.P.C, in CBCID crime at Kollam, on the
ground that he is already on bail in crime No.170/2006 of
Vattiyoorkavu Police Station.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner was only a middle man. He
received money and arranged visa and travel documents,
with the money that had been received through some
other persons abroad. The petitioner had already sold
out his property and arranged re-payment to few
persons. The petitioner has two daughters of which, one
alone is married and other girl is with him. His wife had
divorced him after the mishap that occurred to the
petitioner. He is a chronic diabetic patient, being
treated for the last six years. The petitioner is not able
to immediately meet the demand of the complainant.
Therefore, prayed that he may be granted bail.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other
hand, submitted that the investigation is complete. The
petitioner had cheated 14 persons, though only four
cases had been registered so far. If the amount is not
paid back, the complainant would be put into difficulties.
The sickness of the petitioner would be attended to by
the jail authorities, as and when any such situation
arises, as the health of the petitioner is now reported to
be normal. The prosecution is prepared to immediately
start the trial and complete it at the earliest and
therefore, opposed the granting of the bail to the
petitioner.
4. Without entering into any discussion on the
merit of the matter, as the investigation in this case is
complete and the prosecution is prepared to complete
the trial, I direct the prosecution to immediately take
steps to produce the witnesses, as per the schedule,
before the Court below and the learned Magistrate shall
ensure that the case is taken up with priority and finally
dispose of as early as possible, in any case within two
months from today, as the petitioner is in jail.
5. I also direct the jail authorities to give all the
required medical attendance to the petitioner for
continuing his treatment for diabetics, which he is
alleged to be suffering.
6. Immediately send the copy of the order to the
Court below.
The application is disposed of as above.
J.M.JAMES
JUDGE
mrcs
J.M. JAMES, J.
———————————
B.A. No.6046 of 2006
———————————
Dated this the 19th December, 2006.
O R D E R
The request of the Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Karunagappally, for further extension of
time of three months was considered. The bail was
denied to the accused, after considering the submissions
made by the prosecution. The trial was directed to be
expedited and prosecution undertook that they would
produce all the witnesses.
2. The request of the learned Magistrate
dated 24.11.2006 is that he is not able to dispose of the
case, because of the pressure of work and pendency of
the cases in his Court. That is not in any way the ground
for not disposing of the matter, when a specific direction
is given by this Court. Therefore, I express my
displeasure on the conduct of the learned Magistrate. In
order to avoid any adverse remark on his judicial career,
I refrain from making further observations. However, I
grant an extension of time requested for by the learned
Magistrate.
3. In the above facts situation, the accused,
whose bail had been denied, as per the order of this
Court dated 17.10.2006, shall approach the Court below
with an application for bail, in that event, the Magistrate
shall allow him to be on bail, imposing such conditions,
as are deemed necessary.
J.M. JAMES,
JUDGE.
mrcs.