Disposed

Santhosh @ Kochumon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jun 2014Crl.MC/2271/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a cr.m.c. under Section 482 CrPC, the Court refused to recall a non-bailable warrant or grant bail directly. Instead, it directed the trial Magistrate to hear the accused's bail application, emphasizing that recalling warrants usurps the subordinate court's discretion.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Magistrate to consider and dispose of the bail application on the date of filing if the petitioner surrenders.

Santhosh @ Kochumon Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/23RD JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2271 of 2014

¶6

CP NO.18/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, MAVELIKKARA CRIME NO. 75/2011 OF NOORANAD EXCISE RANGE OFFICE , ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

SANTHOSH @ KOCHUMON, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, VALUTHURA VADAKETHIL VEEDU, AROONOOTTIMANGALAM MURI, VETTIYAR VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.ARUN BOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE EXICISE INSPECTOR, NOORANADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 101.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Kss

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 2271 of 2014

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEXURE-A1 COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURENCE REPORT IN CRIME NO.75/2011 OF NOORANADU EXCISE RANGE.

¶19

ANNEXURE-A2 COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 10.04.2014 ISSUED FROM ANANDA MEDICAL CENTRE, MANKAMKUZHY.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. =================

¶26

CRL.M.C.NO.2271 OF 2014

¶27

=====================

¶28

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2014

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This is an application filed by the petitioner in C.P.No.18 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No.I, Mavelikkara for quashing the order of issuing warrant and for recalling non bailable warrant issued against the petitioner under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶31

It is alleged in the petition that he is the sole accused in CP.No.18 of 2014 now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Mavelikkara which was originated on the basis of Crime No.75 of 2011 of Nooranadu Excise Range alleging commission of an offence under Section 55(a) and 58 of Kerala Abkari Act. After investigation, final report was filed. The petitioner was suffering from Hepatitis and he appeared through counsel, when he received summons with a direction to appear on 08.04.2014. The learned Magistrate rejected the application and issued a non bailable warrant against the petitioner. This is against the dictum laid on the decision reported in 2008(3) KLT 748 Sreekumar V. State

¶32

of Kerala. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:-

¶33

to recall the Non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner/accused in C.P.No.18/2014 by the Honourable

¶34

CRL.M.C.NO.2271 OF 2014 2

¶35

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara

¶36

Considering the nature of relief claimed in the petition this Court felt that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶37

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner is suffering from Hepatitis and undergoing treatment, he could not appear and he appeared through counsel and filed an application for condoning his absence but that was dismissed and non bailable warrant has been issued against him. So he seeks the intervention of this Court to recall the warrant and direct the Magistrate to grant bail.

¶38

The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that the petitioner did not appear on getting summons.

¶39

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrayed as accused in CP.NO.18 of 2014 and he did not appear and so non bailable warrant has been issued to him. The case of the petitioner that he was suffering from Hepatitis and he appeared through counsel. But the learned Magistrate dismissed the application. The dictum laid on the decision reported in Sreekumar V.State of Kerala 2008(3) KLT 748 relied on by the counsel for the petitioner only says that if summons has been issued by the Court and on getting summons if the petitioner appears and offers for bail

¶40

CRL.M.C.NO.2271 OF 2014 3

¶41

then he cannot be detained on the ground that non bailable offences have been incorporated. But in this case that is not the case the petitioner has not appeared and offered bail on the date on which it was posted for that purpose. Further it is for the petitioner to appear before that Court file an application to recall a non bailable warrant is issued stating the reason for his non appearance to the satisfaction of that Court and after satisfaction, the Court can exercise discretion regarding the recalling warrant. So the dictum laid on in the above decision as such it is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is not proper for this Court to direct the Magistrate to recall the warrant or grant bail as it will amount to usurping the discretion of that Court to consider and pass appropriate order in those application However, considering the fact that he is having some illness, this Court feels that the petition can be disposed of with a direction to the Magistrate to consider and dispose of the bail application if any filed on the date of filing itself. So the petition is disposed of as follows:-

¶42

If the petitioner surrenders before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Mavelikkara in CP.No.18 of 2014 (Crime No.75 of 2011 of Nooranadu Excise range) and moves for recalling warrant and release him on bail, then the learned Magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the application after hearing Assistant Public Prosecutor of that Court as far as possible on the

¶43

CRL.M.C.NO.2271 OF 2014 4

¶44

date of filing of the application itself in accordance with law.

¶45

With the above directions and observations the petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court and handover a copy of this order to the counsel for the petitioner so as to enable him to produce before the Court below for necessary action.

¶46

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶47

R.AV

Santhosh @ Kochumon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh @ Kochumon 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

Fasil Vs State of Kerala

Felix Ndubuisi Egedegue @ David Vs State of Kerala

M. Majeed Vs State of Kerala

Saravanan Vs State of Kerala

E.Pavithran Vs State of Kerala

Anu Valsan @ Manu Valsan Vs Sub Inspector of Police