Disposed

Hakkim Sha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jun 2014Crl.MC/3079/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition sought a direction for the Magistrate Court to consider the bail application on the date of surrender. The Court held that magistrates are duty-bound to consider bail applications on the date of surrender and directed the concerned court to do so upon the accused's surrender.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta to consider and dispose of the bail application on the date of filing if the petitioner surrenders.

Hakkim Sha Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/20TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3079 of 2014

¶6

L.P.NO.1/2014 ORIGINATED FROM C.C.NO. 865/2007 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT , PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONER / ACCUSED :

¶8

HAKKIM SHA, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SALI, MANAKKALA THARAYIL VEEDU, THOTTANALLOOR MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, LEBBAVILAVEEDU, KOTTAMUGAL, KANNANKODU MURI, ADOOR VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H.

¶10

RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT :

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Msd.

¶15

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

-----------------------------------------------------------------Criminal M.C. No.3079 of 2014

¶17

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2014

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed by the accused in L.P.No.1/2014 (in C.C.No.865/2007) on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta, to issue direction to the magistrate under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is arrayed as accused in Crime No.631/2007, alleging offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Originally it was taken on file as C.C.No.865/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta. Since the petitioner did not appear and the case was transferred to the register of long pending cases and it is now pending as L.P.No.1/2014 before that court.

¶21

It is alleged in the petition that, he was not

¶22

¶23

Crl. M.C. No.3079 of 2014

¶24

aware of the said case and he was not arrested and only when he came to know that a warrant is pending, then only he came to know about the pendency of the case. Though he is prepared to surrender before the court below, he apprehends that, he will be remanded to judicial custody without considering his bail application on the date of filing of the application itself. Unless a direction is given by this court, normally the magistrate will not consider the bail application. So according to him, he has no other remedy except to approach this court, seeking the following relief:

¶25

“To direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta to consider the bail application which would be filed by the petitioner/accused in L.P.No.1/2014 (originated from C.C.No.865/2007) and pass orders thereon on the date of his surrender itself”

¶26

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

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though he is prepared to surrender, he apprehends

¶28

¶29

Crl. M.C. No.3079 of 2014

¶30

that, he will be remanded to judicial custody and his bail application will not be considered by the court below on the date of filing of the application itself, unless a direction is given by this court in this regard.

¶31

The application was opposed by the Learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that, the petitioner is an absconding accused and the case is now pending as L.P.No.1/2014.

¶32

It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner was arrayed as accused in Crime No.631/2007 of

¶33

Pathanamthitta Police Station and after investigation final report was filed and it was originally taken on file as C.C.No.865/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. It is also an admitted fact that, since the petitioner did not appear, the case was transferred to the register of long pending cases and it is now pending as L.P.No.1/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. The apprehension of the petitioner that, if he surrenders before

¶34

¶35

Crl. M.C. No.3079 of 2014

¶36

the court below, he will be remanded by the court below without considering his bail application is without any basis and not genuine as well. This court has in several petitions of this nature, time and again observed that, the presiding officers of the criminal court are duty bound to consider and dispose of the bail applications on the date of surrender itself as far as possible, unless compelling circumstances warrant the postponement of the same to a future date. So in fact, there is no necessity to issue any direction as claimed in the petition. However, considering the apprehension raised by the petition in the petition, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows:

¶37

If the petitioner surrenders before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta, or the court below where the case is now pending and moves for recalling the warrant and release him on bail in L.P.No.1/2014 (C.C.No.865/2007 in Crime No.631/2007 of Pathanamthitta Police Station) pending before that court, then the learned magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the bail

¶38

¶39

Crl. M.C. No.3079 of 2014

¶40

application on the date of filing of the application itself, as far as possible, after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor of that court in accordance with law. Office is direction to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.

¶41

With the above observation and direction, this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of.

¶42

Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge

¶43

// True Copy//

¶44

P.A. to Judge

¶45

Hakkim Sha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hakkim Sha 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

K.K.Vikas Vs State of Kerala

Shaju Vs Prabhan

Eliyamma Vs the Forest Range Officer

Kusumam Vs State of Kerala

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sri.Rahul R.Thampi Vs Akash