Sajikumar Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 7 December, 2006

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3879 of 2006()


1. SAJIKUMAR PILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BIMAL K.NATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :07/12/2006

 O R D E R
                                   R.BASANT, J.

                         ------------------------------------

                          Crl.M.C.NO.3879 OF 2006

                         ------------------------------------

                  Dated this the 7th day of December, 2006.


                                       ORDER

The petitioner is accused No.2 in a prosecution, inter alia, under

Section 333 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3 of the Explosive

Substance Act, 1908. The co-accused have already been tried, found

not guilty and acquitted. But the petitioner who was not available for

trial is facing the prosecution still, it is submitted. The case against

him has been split up and transferred to the list of Long Pending

cases, it is contended. The petitioner has come to this Court now with

a prayer that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to

quash the proceedings against him in as much the co-accused had

already been found not guilty and acquitted.

2. After discussions at the Bar, the learned counsel for the

petitioner fairly accepts that in the light of the decision in Moosa v.

Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552(F.B)], the mere acquittal

of the co-accused cannot ip so facto justify an order quashing the

proceedings against the co-accused. I am satisfied that in the light of

that decision, the petitioner cannot succeed in his prayer for quashing

the proceedings.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner now wants to surrender before the learned Magistrate. He

Crl.M.C.NO.3879 OF 2006 2

prays that direction under Section 482 Cr.p.C may be issued in his

favour to the learned Magistrate to release him on bail when he

surrenders and applies for bail.

4. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the

learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the

circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the

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

Magistrate would not consider the application for bail on merits, in

accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the

same. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary.

Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice

George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT

339].

5. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. But with the

specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the

learned 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 appropriate orders on merits, in accordance

with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself, unless

there are compelling and exceptional reasons.

R.BASANT

JUDGE

rtr/