Mujeeb vs State Of Kerala on 10 October, 2007

0
57
Kerala High Court
Mujeeb vs State Of Kerala on 10 October, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3125 of 2007()


1. MUJEEB, AGED 26 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :10/10/2007

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J
                       ------------------------------------
                      Crl.M.C.No.3125 of 2007
                       -------------------------------------
              Dated this the 10th day of October, 2007

                                 O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences

punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 I.P.C. The petitioner was

earlier enlarged on bail. Investigation is now complete. Final report

has already been filed. The case has been committed to the Court of

Session. Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda is seized of the matter.

Consequent to non appearance of the petitioner, a non bailable

warrant has been issued against the petitioner by the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge.

2. According to the petitioner, he is innocent. His absence

earlier was not wilful. He is willing to surrender before the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge. But he apprehends that his application for

regular bail may not be considered by the learned Judge on merits in

accordance with law and expeditiously. It is therefore prayed that

directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the

petitioner.

3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge and explain to the learned Judge the

circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the

Crl.M.C.No.3125 of 2007 2

learned Judge. I have no reason to assume that the learned Judge

would not consider such application on merits, in accordance with law

and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or

specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general

directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy

Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339].

4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with

the specific observation that if the petitioner appears before the

learned Judge and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to

the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Judge must proceed

to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of

surrender itself.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-

Crl.M.C.No.3125 of 2007 3

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here