Disposed

Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jun 2016Crl.MC/3253/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised jurisdiction under S.482 CrPC but declined to interfere with the Magistrate's discretion to cancel bail. It directed the petitioner to surrender, prefer an application for bail recall, and await the Magistrate's judicial decision while coercive measures remain in abeyance. A claim to S.343 CrPC was noted but S.482 exercised-over-discretion holds sway.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to surrender within two weeks and prefer bail application; Magistrate to consider it same day; coercive steps in abeyance.

Babu Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/16TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3253 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC.NO. 126/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR CRIME NO. 53/2006 OF PARAVUR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

BABU, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O SALEEM, KAKKIYAZHIKOM, THEKKUMBHAGOM, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶12

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANAKULAM-031

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN-689 001

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶18

Crl.M.C.No.3253 of 2016

¶19

Dated this the 06^th day of June, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

1.The petitioner is the 1^st accused in C.C.No.126/2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur involving offence under S.323, 341 r/w S.34 of the IPC.

¶22

2.The learned counsel would submit that on 25.04.2015 on which date the case was posted, the petitioner failed to appear before Court. The court below after canceling the bail has issued non bailable warrant against him. The prayer of the petitioner is to direct the learned Magistrate to consider the application of the petitioner for recalling the warrant and for grant of bail on the date of surrender and to grant bail.

¶23

3.This Court in exercise of powers under S.482 will not be justified in interfering with the discretion of the learned Magistrate in granting bail as it was owing to the lapses of

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.3253 of 2016 : 2 :

¶25

the petitioner that warrant was ordered.

¶26

4.It is for the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate

¶27

and appraise the reasons for his absence and to seek for recalling the warrant and grant of bail. There is no reason to believe that the learned Magistrate will not exercise his discretion judicially and in accordance with law.

¶28

5.In the result, the petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to surrender before the Court below within 2 weeks of the date of order, and prefer application for recall of warrant and grant of bail with due notice to the learned prosecutor concerned. The learned Magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the said application on the same day itself, notwithstanding the pendency of the warrant.

¶29

6.In the meantime, coercive steps if any shall be kept in abeyance. Petition is disposed of as above.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.

¶32

¶33

[True copy]

¶34

P.A to Judge

Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu 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

Abilash K. Vs State of Kerala

Akhil.S Vs State of Kerala

Bindhu Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Madhu Vs v.S.Nawas

Lalu Vs State of Kerala

Shareef Vs State of Kerala