IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2453 of 2009()
1. TONY THADIKKARAN, S/O.ANTONY THADIKKARAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :31/07/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J
----------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.2453 of 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this 31st day of July 2009
ORDER
Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor who took
notice for respondent.
2. Petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.5 of 2008 of the court of
learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur which arose on the
final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Mathilakam.
Evidence for prosecution was over and petitioner was questioned
under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case was posted
on 18-06-2009 for hearing. That day petitioner was absent but he was
represented by counsel. After hearing both sides, learned magistrate
posted the case for judgment on 24-06-2009. There was a direction to
the petitioner to be present in court on 24-06-2009. On 24-06-2009
petitioner did not appear nor was he represented. Hence bail bond
was cancelled and non-bailment warrant was ordered to the petitioner.
That order is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel submits
that absence of petitioner on 24-06-2009 not willful. On that day,
marriage of the daughter of petitioner was being fixed and petitioner
had to attend that function. He could not intimate his counsel about
his inability to appear in court on 24-06-2009. Learned counsel
requested that the order canceling bail may be set aside.
3. Having heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor, I
Crl.R.P.No.2453 of 2009 2
do not think that it is necessary to set aside the order canceling bail as
no illegality, irregularity or impropriety is involved. Instead, proper
course open to the petitioner is to seek bail from the court below on
executing fresh bond with appropriate sureties. I find no reason to
think that absence of petitioner in the court below on 24-06-2009 was
willful. That being the situation, petitioner can approach learned
magistrate with a petition for his release on bail. If any such petition is
filed, learned magistrate will consider the petition in the facts and
circumstances stated above and pass appropriate orders without delay.
Since petitioner has already been on bail, learned magistrate can after
hearing both sides pass appropriate orders on the date of petition for
bail itself.
Resultantly this revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the
petitioner to move appropriate petition for bail before learned
magistrate. It is directed that execution of warrant if any against the
petitioner will stand in abeyance for a period of three weeks from this
day.
THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE
Sbna/