Partly allowed

Liju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Feb 2016Crl.MC/606/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, noting the inordinate delay in trial and the petitioner's need to join a job abroad, quashed the lower court's dismissal of a bail application. The petitioner was permitted to travel abroad subject to filing an affidavit. This is a memorandum order.<<<<end_of_text>>>

What did the court decide?

Annexure-A5 (dismissal of C.M.P. No. 4034 of 2015) quashed; Petitioner permitted to go abroad upon filing an affidavit.

Liju 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 B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/3RD PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 606 of 2016

¶6

CC 1443/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ATTINGAL CRIME NO. 189/2005 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/4TH ACCUSED :

¶8

---------------------------------------------

¶9

LIJU, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. MURALEEDHARAN, MANNORKONATH PUTHEN VEEDU, VAZHVELIKONAM, KURICHI, VAMANAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN SRI.K.NIRMALAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE :

¶12

------------------------------------

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 606 of 2016

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEXURE A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.1443/2006 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ATTINGAL.

¶21

ANNEXURE A2 : COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW1.

¶22

ANNEXURE A3 : COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW2

¶23

ANNEXURE A4 : COPY OF THE PETITION IN CMP NO.4034 OF 2015 FILED BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ATTINGAL.

¶24

ANNEXURE A5 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.4034 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ATTINGAL.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶31

==================== CRL.M.C. No. 606 of 2016

¶32

====================

¶33

Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2016

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the letter from the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Attingal.

¶36

It seems that C.C.No.1443 of 2006 has been

¶37

pending before the court below all along without any progress in the trial. Even though a report has been called for by this Court from the learned Magistrate, it seems that the learned Magistrate is not even aware of the difference between a charge witness and a prosecution witness. The learned Magistrate has reported that he is awaiting PW3 and PW4 to PW8 for examination. On a glimpse of the report, it may appear that the witnesses were examined as

¶38

CRL.M.C.No. 606 of 2016

¶39

-: 2 :-

¶40

PW3 to PW8. At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that those witnesses were never examined before the court below. Considering the snail pace, in which the matter is going on, this Court is of the view that the prospects of the petitioner to join a job abroad, cannot be denied. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defacto complainant injured in the case is working abroad and he is not available for examination. Considering the present stage of the case and the snail pace, in which the prosecution is going on, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to go abroad in order to join the job.

¶41

C.M.P.No.4034 of 2015 filed before the court below

¶42

for this purpose has been dismissed by the court below vide Annexure-A5 order. Annexure-A5 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is permitted to go abroad on condition of his filing an affidavit before the court below that he will never challenge his identity in the case. The petitioner will be

¶43

CRL.M.C.No. 606 of 2016

¶44

-: 3 :-

¶45

represented by his learned Lawyer. He shall be available for examination, if any, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After filing such an affidavit, the petitioner can go abroad. He shall

¶46

appear before the court below, as and when required.

¶47

This Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

B.KEMAL PASHA,

JUDGE.

DSV/22/2/16

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge

Liju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liju 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

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Manaing Director Vs State of Kerala

P.Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

K.Rajin Vs State of Kerala

K..Muhammedkutty Vs State of Kerala