Allowed

M.K. Suhail v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Aug 2012Crl.MC/2393/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to grant the accused petitioner exemption from physical presence for trial, permitting representation by counsel subject to furnishing cash security and other conditions to ensure presence as needed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to be represented by counsel during trial upon furnishing cash security of Rs. 50,000 and accepting conditions to secure presence.

M.K. Suhail Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/16TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2393 of 2012 ()

¶6

CC.NO.1213/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HOSDRUG

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

M.K. SUHAIL, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, SEBEER MANZIL, MAKKOD KALANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

¶10

SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN SRI.K.M.HASHIR SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN

¶11

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTING S.H.O. BEKAL.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶16

Crl.M.C.NO.2393 OF 2012

¶17

Dated this the 7^th day of August, 2012

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1213 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdrug. That case is a split up case from C.C.No.139 of 2006 of the above court. When the trial proceeded against some of the co-accused, petitioner remained at large and thereupon the case against him was split up and included in the long pending cases. After securing his presence, the case has been numbered as above and it now awaits trial. Petitioner moved an application seeking permanent exemption stating that he has got an employment in a foreign country and therefore he be permitted to leave the jurisdiction of the court. That application was turned down by the Magistrate taking note that previously the case against him had been included in the long pending cases. Annexure A2 is the order passed by the Magistrate. As against that order, petitioner

¶20

Crl.M.C.NO.2393/2012

¶21

¶22

has filed this petition seeking permission to allow him to be represented by his counsel during trial of the case by passing orders in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the 'Code'.

¶23

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public prosecutor. The de facto complainant (CW1) is employed abroad and in fact the parties have settled the matter, is the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner will not dispute his identity and also undertake to appear before the court as and when directed. Past conduct of the petitioner resulted in inclusion of the case in the long pending cases. When that be so, Annexure A2 order cannot be found fault with. However, taking note that the petitioner desires to go out to secure a job, I find, his request for exemption has to be considered, but, of course ensuring and securing his presence for trial as and when needed by the court. To do so, adequate conditions have to be imposed. Petitioner

¶24

Crl.M.C.NO.2393/2012

¶25

¶26

shall furnish cash security for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) before the Magistrate as a condition precedent for grant of exemption and for permission to be represented by a counsel during the trial of the case. The Magistrate may also impose such other conditions as may be required to secure his presence in case the above condition is complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. If cash security is furnished as directed, the Magistrate shall pass orders afresh on Annexure A1 application imposing such other conditions as may be required to ensure his presence as and when needed during the trial of the case.

¶27

Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

¶28

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶29

prp

M.K. Suhail v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K. Suhail 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashraf S/O.Hamza Haji Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Swami Amrutha Chithanya @ Santoh Madhavan

Anil Kumar Y Vs State of Kerala

Thresiamma Vs State of Kerala

Joby Vs State of Kerala

Cheruvottu Sailendran Vs the Sub Inspector of Police