High Court Kerala High Court

Harris Fernandez vs Chacko on 11 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Harris Fernandez vs Chacko on 11 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4154 of 2010()


1. HARRIS FERNANDEZ,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CHACKO, S/O.CHACKO,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.JOSHI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :11/10/2010

 O R D E R
                 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                      -------------------------
                    Crl.M.C No.4154 of 2010
                      --------------------------
              Dated this the 11th October, 2010

                            O R D E R

Petitioner who is the accused in C.C No.816 of 2010

on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VI,

Ernakulam filed this petition under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order passed by

the learned Magistrate in a petition filed under Section

205 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The case of the

petitioner is that the case was originally pending before

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I and he was released

on bail. Subsequently the case was transferred to Judicial

First Class Magistrate Court VI and he was unaware of the

transfer and he did not get any summons from that court

or intimation from the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court-I, Ernakulam regarding the transfer and as he did

not appear, the learned Magistrate on the first posting day

cancelled the bail and issued non-bailable warrant.

2. Learned counsel would submit that petitioner

filed Annexure -I petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C

which was dismissed for the reason that petitioner did not

Crl.M.C No.4154 of 2010
2

appear.

3. If the case was transferred from Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-I to Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court VI, learned Magistrate is not justified in cancelling

the bail if the facts as stated by the petitioner is true. If

petitioner files a petition to recall the non-bailable

warrant, I do not find that learned Magistrate will not

recall the warrant. If the warrant is thus recalled, there is

no necessity to execute a fresh bond.

Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions before

the learned Magistrate by filing a proper application to

dispense his presence. If presence of the petitioner is to

be dispensed with during trial petitioner has to personally

file an application containing the relevant recitals. If such

an application is filed by the petitioner, learned Magistrate

to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

Petition is disposed of as above.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
ma