Allowed

Manu Chandran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 May 2016Crl.MC/2686/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order cancelling their bail bond and issuing non-bailable warrants in an Abkari Act case due to court non-sitting and procedural delays. The High Court set aside the impugned order, cancelled warrants, revived bail, and directed appearance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside, N.B.W. cancelled, bail revived, notice to sureties cancelled, appearance directed on 3.6.2016.

Manu Chandran Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2016/4TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2686 of 2016 ()

¶6

SC. NO.232/2015 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOTTAYAM.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

¶8

MANU CHANDRAN,

¶9

¶10

S/O.T.P. CHANDRASEKHARAN, MANU NIVAS, UDYOGAMANDAL KARA, EELOOR VILLAGE, VADAKKANPARAMBIL TALUK.

¶11

2. SIJIN DEV. V., S/O. VIJAYAN, MAVUMKAL HOUSE, KUMBALAM KARA, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOR TALUK.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH, SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN, SRI.K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM), SRI.V.JOHN THOMAS, SMT.P.V.DENCY.

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUAD , KOTTAYAM IN CR.NO.75/14, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, COCHIN- 31.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. P.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 2686 of 2016

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶21

A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/03/2016 IN SC NO.232/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SESSION'S COURT-IV, KOTTAYAM.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶27

Crl.M.C. No.2686 of 2016

¶28

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2016

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

This application is filed under section 482 of the Code of

¶31

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”). The petitioners challenge Annexure-1 order dated 9.3.2016 in S.C.No.232/2015 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Kottayam. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 and they are being proceeded against for having committed offence punishable under section 58 of the Abkari Act.

¶32

The grievance is that the bond executed before the Court below was cancelled, though it was apparent that there were no wilful laches on their part. The learned counsel produced a copy of the proceedings sheet of the learned Sessions Judge. It appears that on 28.9.2015, summons were issued to the accused and the case was posted for return of summons on 28.11.2015. The petitioners appeared through counsel and the case was adjourned to 6.1.2016. As there was no sitting on that

¶33

Crl.M.C. No.2686/2016 2

¶34

particular day, the case was further adjourned to 9.3.2016. On 9.3.2016, the petitioners filed an application through their counsel seeking exemption for the day, which was rejected and the bail bond was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued to them. It is challenging the same that the instant petition is filed.

¶35

The learned counsel fervently prays that, it will be nearly impossible for them to furnish fresh securities. The learned counsel prays that Annexure 1 order be quashed and the petitioners be permitted to execute a fresh bond on the strength of the same securities.

¶36

In Rajan v. State of Kerala (2006 (4) KLT 429) this Court had occasion to hold that mere non appearance before Court due to reasons beyond a persons control will not be a sufficient reason for any person to incur the liability. It was further held that it was only in cases where there is willful default on the part of the accused to appear in court that forfeiture of bond is to follow and penalty should occur.

¶37

The records reveal that on the previous posting date there was no sitting and the case was posted to 9.3.2016, on

¶38

Crl.M.C. No.2686/2016

¶39

¶40

which day the application for exemption filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner was rejected. In the above factual scenario, a lenient view can be taken owing as it does not appear that there were any willful laches on the part of the petitioners.

¶41

The impugned order is therefore set aside. The non-

¶42

bailable warrant issued against the petitioners shall stand cancelled and the bail granted to the petitioners shall stand revived. The Notice issued against the sureties also will stand cancelled. The petitioners are directed to appear before the court below on 3.6.2016. The court below is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law and procedure.

¶43

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., (JUDGE)

¶44

vps

Manu Chandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manu Chandran 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Vs State of Kerala

Aashique Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Sathar Vs State of Kerala

Ebi Alphonse Vs Renjith John

Dilish John Vs State of Kerala

Yesudas Vs State of Kerala