This is a bail challenge against the forfeiture of a bond and issuance of a warrant due to the petitioner's absence. The High Court declined interference with the trial court's discretion, suggesting surrender for fresh bail instead of deciding the challenge itself.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
TUESDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 13TH BHADRA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 5413 of 2018
IN CC 1546/2016 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM
CRIME NO. 1044/2016 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station , Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
PUNNALA SREEKUMAR AGED 40 YEARS, S/O SUKUMARAN, GRA 109, AVITTOM (H), GOURISPATTOM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE S.I OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, (CRIME 1044/2016) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SRI. ALEX M. THOMBRA - SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. M.C. No. 5413 of 2018
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 04th day of September, 2018
ORDER
Petitioner is the first accused in
C.C.No. 1546 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First-II, Ernakulam. On 21.05.2018 he was absent and the learned counsel filed an application under section 317 Cr.P.C. By the impugned order the learned Magistrate dismissed it and recorded forfeiture of the bail bond executed by the petitioner and ordered issuance of non-bailable arrest warrant against him. This is challenged.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. To grant or not to grant exemption
to an accused from appearance is in the discretion of the trial court. Admittedly, all the accused were absent when the case was taken
Crl. M.C. No. 5413 of 2018 -:3:-
up. This court will not interfere with the
discretion exercised by the trial court. The learned counsel submits that personal appearance of the petitioner was not necessary on that particular date. If this is true, the petitioner may surrender before the court below and apply for fresh bail. The court shall dispose it of expeditiously taking into account the fact that his presence was not necessary on 21.05.2018.
With this observation this Crl.M.C
is closed.
Sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE
SMA
Crl. M.C. No. 5413 of 2018
-:4:-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES :-
ANNEXURE I A PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT (C.C.1546/2016) PENDING ON THE FILE OF JFCCM COURT-II, ERNAKULAM
ANNEXURE II A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PETITION FIELD AS CRL.MP.1038/2018 ON 21/5/2018 AND ITS ORDER PASSED BY JFCM COURT-II, ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
SMA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion regarding forfeiture of bail bond in the absence of all accused.
Whether the petitioner's argument that personal appearance was unnecessary warrants discharge of a warrant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PUNNALA SREEKUMAR
STATE OF KERALA
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
