IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18367 of 2004(J)
1. K. IBRAHIMKUTTY, S/O. ABDUL KADAR,
... Petitioner
2. C.H. RABIYA, D/O. IBRAHIM KUTTY,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE
... Respondent
2. K.V. VAMANAN, S/O. KUNHAMBU NAMBIAR,
3. K.P. JANARDHANAN, KOROTH VEETTIL,
4. DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER,
5. K. SASI, S/O. RAGHAVAN, CHADAYAN COLONY
6. A.P. KUNHAMED, S/O. ABDUL KADER,
7. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.MOHAMMED KUNHI
For Respondent :SRI.A.R.GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.M.PAREED PILLAY(RETD.CHIEF JUSTICE)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.JOHN MATHEW (RETD.JUDGE)
Dated :13/08/2008
O R D E R
JUSTICE M.M.PAREED PILLAY
(RETD. CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
AND
JUSTICE K.JOHN MATHEW
(RETD.JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
==================================
W.P.(C). No.18367 of 2004
===================================
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008
AWARD
Representatives of the 7th respondent-Insurance Company
submitted that the amount has already been deposited. Counsel
for the appellant submitted that the amount deposited has
already been withdrawn and hence he has withdrawn the writ
petition.
The writ petition is withdrawn as settled.
M.M.PAREED PILLAY
(RETD. CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
K.JOHN MATHEW
(RETD.JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
dvs
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+Crl.MC.No. 3053 of 2008()
#1. BINU, S/O.GOPINATH
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC
... Respondent
! For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
^ For Respondent : No Appearance
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
% Dated :13/08/2008
: O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
————————————————-
Crl.M.C. No. 3053 of 2008
————————————————-
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment as 3rd accused in a
prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.324
read with Sec.34 IPC. The petitioner was not arrested at the
crime stage. No notice, processes or summons from court was
ever served on him, it is submitted. But reckoning the
petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have
been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate.
Such processes are chasing the petitioner now. The petitioner
apprehends imminent arrest.
2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent.
His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The
petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to surrender before
the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner
Crl.M.C. No. 3053 of 2008 -: 2 :-
apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be
considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance
with law and expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, that
the petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to the
learned Magistrate to release him on bail when he appears
before the learned Magistrate.
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 consider the petitioner’s
application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law
and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to
be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general
directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision
reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police
(2003 (1) KLT 339).
4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the
observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned
Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to
the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate
Crl.M.C. No. 3053 of 2008 -: 3 :-
must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and
expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.
5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/