IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2098 of 2007()
1. M.SUBASH, S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/06/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2098 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2007
O R D E R
Petitioner is accused No.30 in a prosecution for offences
punishable, inter alia, under Sections 307, 353 and 332 read with 149
I.P.C. Some of the co-accused who faced trial have already been
found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioner was not available to
face trial along with the co-accused in such trial. Those accused were
acquitted on the ground that there was no evidence to identify them
as some of the miscreants involved in the incident which had taken
place.
2. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a request
to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The co-accused
having secured acquittal on the ground that they were not properly
identified, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
chance of the petitioner being identified is also remote. There is no
chance of this prosecution coming to successful culmination. The
possibility of conviction being bleak, the proceedings may be quashed.
This in short is the prayer.
3. I am of the opinion that the request of the petitioner
cannot be accepted. In the trials held against the co-accused, the
petitioner was not present. There was no question or necessity of the
prosecution adducing any evidence with regard to the complicity of
Crl.M.C.No.2098 of 2007 2
the petitioner in such trials. The possibility of some of the witnesses
identifying the petitioner in the trial to be held against him cannot be
ruled out by this Court rationally on the basis of the materials
presently available. If that be so, the petitioner’s claim for quashing
of proceedings must be held to be not justified at all. The decision of
the Full Bench in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (supra)
concludes the question squarely.
4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the
petitioner appears before the learned Sessions Judge and applies for
bail, there may be a direction that such application must be
considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is
further prayed that on such appearance, an expeditious disposal of
the case may also be directed.
6. The accused has not so far appeared and I think it is
absolutely unnecessary to issue any such speculative directions.
Needless to say, when the petitioner appears and applies, his
application for bail will have to be considered on merits, in
accordance with law and expeditiously. His prayer for expeditious
disposal will also have to be considered by the learned Magistrate and
appropriate orders passed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.M.C.No.2098 of 2007 3