K.Subair vs Circle Inspector Of Police on 1 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2465 of 2008()


1. K.SUBAIR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :01/07/2008

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   Crl.M.C.No. 2465 of 2008
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
               Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008

                               O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the

offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. He is the 5th

accused. All the co-accused have now been acquitted in separate

trials held against them. The case against the petitioner has been

transferred to the list of long pending cases. Reckoning him as

an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued

against him. It is the contention of the petitioner that the co-

accused as well as the petitioner have settled their disputes and

the victims have no grievance whatsoever. But the victims have

not come before this Court. If actually the victims have

compounded the offences, the matter can be reported to the

learned Magistrate and I find no reason to assume that the

composition will not be accepted by the learned Magistrate. The

mere fact that the co-accused have been acquitted on the ground

Crl.M.C.No. 2465 of 2008
2

that the victims who have compounded the offences did not tender

evidence against the co-accused is no reason for the petitioner to claim

any benefit or advantage from such acquittal. There is nothing to show

that the alleged victims have compounded the offences allegedly

committed by the petitioner. The petitioner, in these circumstances,

has to face the trial in the light of the dictum in Moosa v. S.I. of

Police (2006 (1) KLT 552).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner apprehends that if he surrenders before the learned

Magistrate, his application for bail may not be considered by the

learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general

directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in

Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). No special

or specific direction appears to be necessary in the facts and

circumstances of this case.

4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however

hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned

Crl.M.C.No. 2465 of 2008
3

Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice

to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must

proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm