IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2727 of 2010()
1. K.RAMSHAD, SON OF ABOOBACKER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :02/09/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2727 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioner, the accused in Crime No.386/2010 of
Chandera Police Station, was granted bail by
Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdrug. The
case was registered for the offence under Section
324 of Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, police
altered the offences to one under Sections 326 and
308 of Indian Penal Code. The Station House
Officer, Chandera Police Station filed C.M.P.No.
3806/2010 before the Magistrate for a direction to
the petitioner to apply for bail for the altered
offences. By Annexure-A1 order, learned Magistrate
directed the petitioner to apply for bail for the
newly added offences. This petition is filed under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash
Annexure-A1 order contending that learned
Magistrate should have followed the decision of
this Court in Biju v. State of Kerala (2002 (2) KLT
CRMC 2727/10 2
495) and should not have followed the decision in
Thomas v. State of Kerala (2008 (3) KLT 248) and
therefore, the order is illegal and is to be
quashed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. Though learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner sought to convince me that there is
conflict in the two decisions, I cannot agree with
the submission. In Biju’s case (supra), this Court
held that bail already granted can only be
cancelled on specific grounds, as per the
provisions provided under Code of Criminal
Procedure. In Thomas’s case (supra), this Court
held that when a grievous offence is added
subsequent to granting of bail for a lessor
offence, the accused has to apply for bail for the
newly added offences. Learned Magistrate followed
the decision in Thomas’s case (supra). The order is
perfectly legal. I find no reason to interfere with
CRMC 2727/10 3
Annexure-A1 order.
4. Learned counsel then submitted that as
petitioner did not appear as directed, a non
bailable warrant was issued and if petitioner
appears and files an application for bail, it is
likely that he would be remanded. I cannot agree
with the submission that leaned Magistrate will not
consider the application for bail on merits.
Learned Magistrate shall consider the application
for bail in accordance with law and pass
appropriate orders without delay.
Petition is dismissed.
2nd September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv