Disposed

Hyder v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jun 2011Crl.MC/1393/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners accused of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocites) Act and Juvenile Justice Act sought a direction to the Magistrate to grant bail. The Court refused to direct bail or influence the Magistrate, citing Section 482 CrPC, but directed the Magistrate to dispose of any pending bail application expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petition for bail direction dismissed; directed Magistrate to dispose of any bail application filed by petitioners expeditiously.

Hyder Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1393 of 2011()

¶6

------------------------------------CR NO.143/2011 OF NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 AND 2

¶8

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

¶9

1. HYDER @ CHERIYAPPU, S/O. MOHAMMED, KOLAPPATTA HOUSE, VARIKKAL, NILAMBUR TLAUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. ABDUL SALAM, S/O. HASSAN MOYIN, THEKKUMPURATH HOUSE, VARIKKAL NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NILAMBUR THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

2. SHY MOL, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. SANKARAN, MUNDAKKADAVU COLONY, KARULAI VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM - 679 329.

¶16

3. BINDU, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. BOMMAN, MUNDAKKADAVU COLONY, KARULAI VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM - 679 329.

¶17

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSCECUTOR SRI.MANU

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

CRMC.NO.1393/2011

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶23

ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE FIR IN CR.NO.143/2011 OF NILAMBUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶30

-------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1393 of 2011 -------------------------------------Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2011. ORDER

¶31

Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.143 of 2011 of Nilambur Police Station for offences punishable under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Case is that petitioners and another who are employers of tribal women sexually exploited them, employed minor boys aged 14 years for hard labour without paying wages and thereby committed offences above stated. Petitioners request for a direction to the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilambur to grant them

¶32

bail. Learned counsel submitted that in the light of the decisions in Shanu v.

¶33

State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452) and Ali v. State of Kerala (2000

¶34

(2) KLT 280) , direction may be given to the learned Magistrate to grant bail. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶35

2. A Division Bench of this Court in Martin v. State of Kerala

¶36

(2004 (2) KLT 1037) has held that no direction could be issued even in the matter of disposal of the applications within a prescribed time. The Supreme Court in TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala and others ((2011 (1) KHC

¶37

142) has held that the High Court shall not in exercise of power under Section

¶38

Crl.MC No.1393/2011

¶39

¶40

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure issue any order so as to influence the subordinate judiciary to pass any order/judgment in a particular manner. Hence no such direction as prayed for could be granted. But learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilambur is directed to dispose of application for bail if any filed by petitioners as expeditiously as possible.

¶41

Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of with the above direction.

¶42

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.

¶43

cks

Hyder v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hyder v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.E.Mathew Vs the State of Kerala

Aju Vs State of Kerla and Another

V.K.Bindu Vs R.Lakshmi Devara and Another

Suku Vs Jagdish

K.M.Abdulkareem Vs State of Kerala and Another

Jmj Silvester Vs State of Kerala