High Court Kerala High Court

Shabeer vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 16 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
Shabeer vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 16 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2268 of 2007()


1. SHABEER, S/O.MUHAMMED SALI, MANGULAM
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SHANAZ SHABEER, S/O.SHABEER, RESIDING
3. SHADIL SHABEER, S/O.SHABEER, RESIDING

                        Vs



1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE REP; BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :16/07/2007

 O R D E R
                                 R. BASANT, J.

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

                       Crl.M.C.No.  2268  of   2007

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

                  Dated this the  16th   day of   July, 2007


                                     O R D E R

The petitioners face allegations, inter alia, under Section 308

r/w. 149 I.P.C. In the course of investigation, the petitioners had

obtained anticipatory bail. But they were not arrested by the police,

it is submitted. After the investigation was completed, final report

was filed. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. Before

the Court of Sessions the petitioners did not appear. Consequently

the learned Sessions Judge issued non-bailable warrants to procure

the presence of the petitioners.

2. According to the petitioners they are absolutely innocent.

There was no wilful laches on their part in not appearing before the

learned Judge. They are prepared to appear before the learned

Sessions Judge and seek regular bail. But they apprehend that their

application for bail may not be considered by the learned Judge on

merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. They contend that

in as much as anticipatory bail having granted to the petitioners, the

learned Sessions Judge should not have issued non-bailable warrants.

Notwithstanding the grant of anticipatory bail earlier, if the indictee

Crl.M.C.No. 2268 of 2007

2

does not appear before the learned Sessions Judge as summoned or later,

certainly to procure his presence the learned Sessions Judge has the

jurisdiction to issue warrant of arrest.

3. It is certainly for the petitioners to appear before the learned

Judge and explain to the learned Judge the circumstances under which

they could not appear before the learned Sessions Judge. I have no reason

to assume that the learned Judge would not consider the application for bail

to be filed by the petitioners when they surrender before the learned Judge,

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 by this Court in the

decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339).

3. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten

to observe that if the petitioners appear before the learned Sessions Judge

and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in

charge of the case, the learned Judge must proceed to pass orders on merits,

in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.






                                                                (R. BASANT)

tm                                                                    Judge


Crl.M.C.No.  2268  of   2007

                                 3