A.R.Mohamed Yacoob vs State Of Kerala on 5 February, 2007

0
199
Kerala High Court
A.R.Mohamed Yacoob vs State Of Kerala on 5 February, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 273 of 2007()


1. A.R.MOHAMED YACOOB, AGED 62 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :05/02/2007

 O R D E R
                                    R.BASANT, J

                                 ----------------------

                              Crl.M.C.No.273 of 2007

                           ----------------------------------------

                   Dated this the 5th day of February  2007




                                      O R D E R

The petitioner is the fifth accused in a prosecution under

Section 420 read with 34 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on

the basis of a final report submitted by the police. The case has

been pending from 2004. The petitioner has not appeared

before the learned Magistrate and consequently he finds himself

in the unenviable predicament of a warrant of arrest issued by

the learned Magistrate chasing him. The petitioner now wants

to surrender before the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that the petitioner apprehends that his

application for bail may not be considered on merits, in

accordance with law and expeditiously by the learned

Magistrate. He, therefore, prays that the directions under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to the learned Magistrate to

release the petitioner on bail when he appears and applies for

bail.

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

Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate, the

Crl.M.C.No.237/07 2

circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before

the learned Magistrate.

3. I find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned

Magistrate wound not consider the application for bail to be filed

by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or

specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general

directions have been issued in Alice George vs. Deputy

Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339].

4. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed but with the

specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the

learned Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving sufficient

prior notice to the learned Public Prosecutor in charge of the

case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate

orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on

the date of surrender itself unless there are compelling reasons.

Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

Crl.M.C.No.237/07 3

Crl.M.C.No.237/07 4

R.BASANT, J

C.R.R.P.No.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF JULY 2006

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *