Petitioner, a police officer accused in a murder case, sought bail on surrender date. Court dismissed the petition, directing the Magistrate to follow Sreekumar principles when handling an accused appearing in response to a summons.
Crl.M.C. dismissed; direction to Magistrate to consider Sreekumar principles regarding bail when summons is issued.
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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 9308 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCP 1/2021 OF CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
SHAMS P.P AGED 53 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NARCOTIC CELL, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM(DIST.) ( S/O PAREETH, PACKOLIL (H), PEZHAKAPILLI P.O. MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM (DIST.), PIN - 686673 BY ADVS. ANIL K.MUHAMED KRISHNAKUMAR G. AJIN SALAM
RESPONDENT/S:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM UNIT, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ADV VIPIN NARAYAN-PP ADV S MANU, DSGI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.9308/2022
: 2 :
ORDER
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2022
The petitioner is the accused in C.P. No.1/2021 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner has approached this Court, praying for a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the said case on the date of surrender itself.
Crl.M.C.No.9308/2022
: 3 :
Police and in case the petitioner is remanded in judicial custody, serious prejudice will be caused. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in Sreekumar v. State of Kerala [2008 (3) KLT 748].
“When a Court issues summons and not a warrant under S.204 Cr.P.C. in a non bailable warrant offence, I must assume that the learned Magistrate must have advisedly exercised the discretion under S.204 Cr.P.C. to issue a summons and not a warrant if a warrant were issued against him, the petitioner would certainly have been entitled, in the light of the dictum in Bharat
Crl.M.C.No.9308/2022
: 4 :
Chaudhary and another v. State of Bihar, 2003 KHC 1216: AIR2003 SC 4662; 2003 (3) KLT 956; 2003(8) SCC 77: JT 2003 Sup (2) SC 542 : 2003 CriLJ 5038: 2003 AIR SCW 5092 : 2003 (4) Crimes 264 : 2003 (8) Scale 340 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1953, to move the superior Courts for anticipatory bail. Having chosen to exercise the discretion under S.204 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner and having issued only a summons to the accused, it appears to me to be heartless, insensitive and harsh for any Court to remand an accused person who has come to Court on the invitation extended to him by the Court by issuing a summons. That procedure is shockingly unreasonable and should not be pursued by any Court. Having exercised the discretion under S.204 Cr.P.C. to issue only a summons and having led the accused by such conduct to believe that he can safely appear before Court on invitation, it would be impermissible for any Court thereafter to turn turtle and remand the accused to custody. Issue of summons by exercise of the discretion under S.204 Cr.P.C. does firmly and eloquently convey that the accused person on appearance shall not be detained unnecessarily if he is willing and prepared to offer bail. The Courts will have to be careful at the stage of exercising the discretion under S.204 Cr.P.C. and cannot take parties by surprise when they appear before Court in response to an innocuous summons issued by the Court. This must be so whether the offence is triable by a Magistrate or not and whether the offence is bailable or not.”
Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this Crl.M.C.,
by making it clear that, by taking a decision, the learned Magistrate shall take into account the principles laid down in Sreekumar 's case.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE
ncd
Crl.M.C.No.9308/2022
: 5 :
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9308/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THAT SUMMONS ISSUED BY CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM IN C.P. 1 OF 2021
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal miscellaneous case seeking enlargement on bail at the time of surrender can be entertained when the accused has been issued a summons instead of a warrant under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
Whether the learned Magistrate must consider principles laid down in Sreekumar when deciding on bail after issuing a summons in a non-bailable offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sreekumar v. State of KeralaApplied¶20
Sreekumar v. State of Kerala, [2008 (3) KLT 748]
Bharat Chaudhary and another v. State of BiharReferred¶23
Bharat Chaudhary and another v. State of Bihar, 2003 KHC 1216: AIR2003 SC 4662; 2003 (3) KLT 956; 2003(8) SCC 77 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SHAMS P.P.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
