IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 494 of 2001()
1. K.T.RASHEED
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE C.I. OF POLICE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :26/09/2007
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Crl. R.P. No. 494 OF 2001 and
Crl.M.C.Nos.2205 and 2648 OF 2001
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2007
O R D E R
The Crl.R.P. has been filed by A11 and the
common petitioner in the two Crl.M.Cs. is A1 in crime
No.618/00 of Mannarkkad Police Station for offences
punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302
read with section 149 IPC. A1 and A11 were granted
anticipatory bail by the Sessions court, Palakkad.
Subsequently, on the motion of the investigating officer the
anticipatory bail granted to A1 and A11 was cancelled taking
note of the gravity of the offence. Crl.R.P. No.494/01 has
been filed by A11 challenging the order cancelling the
anticipatory bail. Crl.M.C.2648/01 has been filed by A1
challenging the order cancelling the anticipatory bail.
Crl.M.C.No.2205/01 has been filed by A1 requesting the
change of the Public Prosecutor alleging bias and political
interference.
Crl.R.P.No.494/01 & connected cases
: 2 :
2. When these matters came up for hearing today, the
learned counsel appearing for the first accused in two
Crl.M.Cs. submitted that A1 is not interested in prosecuting
Crl.M.C.No.2648/01 and he is not pressing the same. The
counsel also submitted that on account of the passage of time
Crl.M.C.No.2205/01 has become infructuous. Accordingly,
both the Crl.M.Cs. are dismissed as prayed for by the counsel
without any adjudication on the merits.
3. Coming to Crl.R.P.No.494/01, as noticed earlier,
the offences for which the accused stand charged are grave
offences in which anticipatory bail ought not to have been
granted and was rightly cancelled by the Sessions Court upon
a motion by the investigating officer. I do not find any illegality
in the said order eventhough it is passed without notice to the
11th accused/petitioner. The main case in which the accused
persons appeared before the committal court, has been
committed to the Sessions Court, Palakkad where it is
pending as S.C.No.630/05. Since the charge sheet against
A11 was filed showing that he is absconding, he may have to
Crl.R.P.No.494/01 & connected cases
: 3 :
be committed to the court of sessions by the committal
Magistrate after complying section 207 Cr.P.C. Since the
investigation is over and the case ended in the filing of a
charge sheet long ago, there is no need for interrogation or
questioning of A11. I, therefore, do not see any reason why
A11 should not be enlarged on regular bail. Accordingly, if
A11 surrenders before the Magistrate concerned and files an
application for regular bail within two weeks from today, he
shall be released on bail on appropriate conditions ensuring
his presence for the trial of the case. The committal
Magistrate shall also complete the committal proceedings as
against A11 expeditiously and commit A11 also to the
Sessions Court so that it could be clubbed along with
S.C.No.630/05 for joint trial and disposal.
(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks
Crl.R.P.No.494/01 & connected cases
: 4 :
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
““““““““““““““““““““““““
Crl. R.P. No. 494 OF 2001 and
Crl.M.C.Nos.2205 & 2648 OF 2001
““““““““““““““““““““““““
O R D E R
26th day of September, 2007