IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1471 of 2007()
1. HARIDAS, S/O. NANU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :16/07/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.1471 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner is the sole accused in a pending prosecution under
Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate of the
First Class-II, Kochi. The petitioner faces indictment for offences
punishable under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. After cognizance
was taken further investigation was being conducted under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. At that stage, Annexure-A7 order was
passed by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to
produce a vehicle involved in the crime which was allegedly in the
possession of the petitioner. The petitioner did/could not produce
the said vehicle and thereupon the learned Magistrate proceeded
to pass Annexure-A8 order cancelling the bail granted to the
petitioner. It is these orders which are challenged before me.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor now submits that
further investigation has been continued. The vehicle has been
seized and in these circumstances it is not necessary to maintain
or uphold Annexure-A7 order. The vehicle having already been
seized, the direction to the petitioner to produce the vehicle has
Crl.M.C. No.1471 of 2007 2
become unnecessary and infructuous now. Similarly the learned
Public Prosecutor submits that the cancellation of bail was sought
only to facilitate interrogation of the petitioner and the recovery
of the vehicle. In as much as the vehicle has been recovered
now, it is not necessary to cancel the bail granted to the
petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that
further investigation has already been completed and further final
report has already been filed.
3. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that Annexures-
A7 and A8 orders can now be set aside as such orders are not
necessary at present considering the stage of the proceedings.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
wants to take objection to certain observations made in
Annexures A7 and A8 orders. In as much as I am choosing to set
aside Annexures A7 and A8 orders, it is not necessary to refer
particularly to any of the observations made in Annexures A7 and
A8. I need only mention that the observations made in Annexures
A7 and A8 should not in any way influence the learned Magistrate
when he takes up the matter for final disposal.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits
that the attitude shown by the learned Magistrate in the course of
Crl.M.C. No.1471 of 2007 3
the pendency of this Crl.M.C instills in the mind of the petitioner a
reasonable apprehension that he may not get justice at the hands
of the learned Magistrate. No such prayer is formally raised.
Allegations justifying grant of such a prayer have not even been
raised. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that in this Crl.M.C
the said prayer, raised at the fag end of arguments, for transfer,
cannot also be considered favourably.
6. In the result:
i) This Crl.M.C is allowed;
ii) Annexures A7 and A8 orders are set aside.
Sd/-
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
/true copy/
P.A to Judge