Disposed

Sarat.S.Panickar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Aug 2012Crl.MC/2694/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings or a direction for expedited bail consideration. The Court did not quash proceedings but directed the Magistrate to consider the bail application immediately if the petitioners surrendered within ten days. The direction does not preclude judicial scrutiny on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued that if petitioners surrender within ten days and give notice to the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Magistrate shall consider the bail application expeditiously on the date of surre

Sarat.S.Panickar Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/18TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2694 of 2012 ()

¶6

IN CP.18/2012 of J.M.F.C.-I,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. SARAT.S.PANICKAR, AGED 22 YEARS S/O. SASIDHARA PANICKAR VETTOLIMALA LAKSHOM VEEDU COLONY, OONNUKALLU PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.

¶9

2. BIJI BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 40 YEARS

¶10

S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, VETTOLIMALA LAKSHOM VEEDU COLONY OONNUKALLU, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.

¶11

3. REJI BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 40 YEARS

¶12

S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, VETTOLIMALA LAKSHOM VEEDU COLONY OONNUKALLU, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.

¶13

4. SASIDHARA PANICKAR, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. DHAMODHARA PANICKAR VETTOLIMALA LAKSHOM VEEDU COLONY, OONNUKALLU PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU)

¶15

CORESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶16

STATE OF KERALA

¶17

THROUGH THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 2694 of 2012 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'SANNEXURES:

¶23

ANNEXURE1: A CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO.62/2011. ANNEXUREII: A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.62/2001 ANNEXUREIII: A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.531/2011.

¶24

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

dlk

S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN,J

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.2694 of 2012

¶31

Dated this the 9^th day of August, 2012

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Petitioners are the accused in a crime case involving

¶34

various offences under the Indian Penal Code and also an offence of atrocity under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 registered at Pathanamthitta Police Station. After completion of the investigation in the crime the Deputy Superintendent of Police , Pathanamthitta has laid the final report before the Court indicting the accused for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and the aforesaid Act, and cognizance being taken of the offences the case is now pending in committal proceedings before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Pathanamthitta. The above petition

¶35

has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused

¶36

At the time of hearing the limited prayer

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.2694 of 2012

¶38

¶39

canvassed by their counsel is for issuing a direction to the Magistrate to consider their application for bail on the the date of their surrender. It is submitted that non bailable warrants issued by the courts are pending execution against the petitioners. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note that the case is now pending in committal proceedings the following direction is issued.

¶40

In case the petitioners surrender before the Magistrate within a period of ten days from today and advance notice on their application for bail has been given to the Assistant Public prosecutor, the Magistrate shall consider such application expeditiously, preferably, on the date of their surrender. I make it clear that the direction given as above shall not be construed as placing any impediment to the Magistrate in deciding such application on its merits in accordance with law.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN,JUDGE.

¶43

dlk

Sarat.S.Panickar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarat.S.Panickar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Vs State Pf Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Kutty Vs State of Kerala

Dr.N.Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Athira Vs the State of Kerala

Kanakan Vs State of Kerala