Disposed

M.M.Muneer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 May 2016Crl.MC/2809/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, being accused in a criminal case with non-bailable warrants, sought a direction to the trial court to dispose of their bail application on the date of filing. The Court held that trial courts are duty-bound to consider bail applications on the date of surrender itself and merely directed the trial court to follow this practice.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial Magistrate to consider the bail application on the date of filing after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor.

M.M.Muneer 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. 2809 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC NO.580/2010 PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT AT IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. M.M.MUNEER, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, METHEL HOUSE,

¶9

EDAPPALLY DESOM, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

2. SULEKHA MUNEER, AGED 36 YEARS W/O. MUNEER, METHEL HOUSE, EDAPPALLY DESOM, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.E.A.BIJUMON

¶12

SRI.AJEESH S.BRITE

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031

¶15

2. JAYA, W/O SOMAN, VEEROLATHU HOUSE, PLASSERY, THRISSUR - 680015.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH

¶17

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

¶18

BKA/-

¶19

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶20

-------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No. 2809 of 2016

¶21

Dated this the 11^th day of May, 2016

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This is an application filed by accused Nos. 1 & 2 in CC No.580/2010 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda, for issuing a direction to consider and dispose of the bail application on the date of filing itself, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶24

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 & 2 in CC No.580/2010 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda, alleging that the petitioners along with other accused, have committed offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Though earlier they entered appearance and were released on bail, later, due to some unavoidable circumstances, they could not appear before the court and hence, non-bailable

¶25

..2..

¶26

Crl. M.C. No. 2809 of 2016

¶27

warrants have been issued against them. They are prepared to surrender, but, they apprehend that if they surrender, they will be remanded to custody without considering their bail application. Therefore, the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this Court, seeking the following reliefs;

¶28

“1. Direct the CC No.580/2010 pending before the Honorable Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - at Irinjalakuda, Thrissur District, to consider the bail application submitting by the petitioner/Accused on the same day.

¶29

Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Hon'ble Court.”

¶30

Heard Sri.Bijumon E.A., the learned counsel

¶31

appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Bindu Gopinath, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of the non-bailable warrant issued, even if the petitioners surrender, their bail application will not be considered and they 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 same day.

¶33

The application was opposed by the learned Public

¶34

..3..

¶35

Crl. M.C. No. 2809 of 2016

¶36

Prosecutor.

¶37

It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are

¶38

arrayed as accused Nos. 1 & 2 in CC No.580/2010 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda; and since they did not appear, admittedly, non-bailable warrants have been issued against them, which are pending. The apprehension of the petitioners that if they surrender before the court below, they will be remanded to custody and their 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. So, there is no necessity to issue any direction as such, as claimed by the petitioners. However, considering the apprehension raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows;

¶39

If the petitioners surrender before the Judicial First

¶40

..4..

¶41

Crl. M.C. No. 2809 of 2016

¶42

Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda and file an application to recall the warrant and release them on bail in CC No.580/2010 pending before that court, then, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the application filed by the petitioners after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor as far as possible on the date of filing the application itself in accordance with law.

¶43

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

¶44

Sd/- K. RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶45

bka/11.5.16

¶46

//True copy//

¶47

PA to Judge

M.M.Muneer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M.Muneer 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

Jayakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Jaffar Vs P.Gopalakrishnan