Partly allowed

Jayakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 May 2016Crl.MC/2808/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a non-bailable warrant, seeking direction to recall the warrant and mandate the Magistrate to consider bail on the date of surrender. Court directed Magistrate to consider and dispose of bail application on the date of filing after hearing, but declined to grant bail directly.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the Magistrate to consider and dispose of the bail application on the date of filing itself after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Jayakrishnan 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 K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MAY 2016/21ST VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2808 of 2016 ()

¶6

CP NO.77/2014 PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHENGANNUR IN CRIME NO.533/2011 OF MANNAR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

JAYAKRISHNAN AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PALLAYATHIL HOUSE, MANNAR P.O., MANNAR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

BKA/-

¶15

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

-------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No. 2808 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 11^th day of May, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This is an application filed by one of the accused in CP No.77/2014 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur, to issue a direction to the Magistrate to consider and dispose of the bail application on the date of filing itself, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is arrayed as one of the accused in Crime No.533/2011 of Mannar Police Station, alleging commission of the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 449, 452, 341, 427, 435, 307, 302 r/w Section 149 IPC; and after investigation, final report has been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chengannur, and the case has been taken as CP No.77/2014. Since the petitioner could not appear on the date, on which the case was posted for appearance, non-bailable warrant has been

¶21

..2..

¶22

Crl. M.C. No. 2808 of 2016

¶23

issued against him. He is prepared to surrender, but, he apprehends that if he surrenders, he will be remanded to custody without considering his bail application. Therefore, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court, seeking the following reliefs;

¶24

i) issue a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur, to recall the non-bailable warrant against the petitioner in CP No.77/2014 (in Crime No.533/2011 of Mannar Police Station),

¶25

iii)Issue a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur to consider the petitioner's bail application on the date of surrender itself and also release the petitioner on bail in the event of his surrender.

¶26

v) Issue such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶27

Heard Sri.Ajith Murali, the learned counsel

¶28

appearing for the petitioner and Smt.P.Maya, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the non-bailable warrant issued, even if the petitioner surrenders, his bail application will not be considered and he will be remanded to custody and unless a direction is issued by this Court, the court below will not consider and dispose of the bail application on the

¶30

..3..

¶31

Crl. M.C. No. 2808 of 2016

¶32

same day.

¶33

The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been arrayed as one of the accused in Crime No.533/2011 of Mannar Police Station; and after investigation, final report has been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur, wherein the case is pending as CP No.77/2014. Since the petitioner did not appear, admittedly, a non-bailable warrant has been issued against him, which is pending. The apprehension of the petitioner that if he surrenders before the court below, he will be remanded to custody and his bail application will not be considered on the date of filing the application, is without any basis. This Court, in several matters of this nature, has observed that the Presiding Officers of the criminal court are duty bound to consider and dispose the bail applications filed by the accused on the date of surrender itself as far as possible.

¶35

This Court cannot direct the court to grant bail or

¶36

..4..

¶37

Crl. M.C. No. 2808 of 2016

¶38

recall the warrant and it is for the court to consider the same on the basis of the circumstances made out by the petitioner, which prevented him to appear before the court. But, considering the apprehension raised by the petitioner, this Court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows;

¶39

If the petitioner surrenders before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur and files an application to recall the warrant and release him on bail in CP No.77/2014 (Crime No.533/2011 of Mannar Police Station) pending before that court, then, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the application filed by the petitioner after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor as far as possible on the date of filing the application itself in accordance with law.

¶40

With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of.

¶41

Sd/- K. RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶42

bka/11.5.16

¶43

//True copy//

¶44

PA to Judge

Jayakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayakrishnan 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

M.P. Shahul Hameed Vs the State of Kerala

Mathew George Vs State of Kerala

Rishad Vs the State of Kerala

Sajeev Vs Balachandran

M.M.Muneer Vs State of Kerala

Jaffar Vs P.Gopalakrishnan