Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Kerala
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

Abdul Salam vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala|22 May, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the accused in Crime No.248/2014 of Pothencode Police Station of Thiruvananthapuram District to issue certain directions to the court below under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the accused in Crime No.248/2014 of Pothencode Police Station registered on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant alleging commission of offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 324 and 326 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has not committed any offence and in fact, the de facto complainant and his father were the real aggressors and they criminally trespassed into the shop of the petitioner and attacked him and in that event, they sustained some injuries as well. However, the application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Sessions Court. Though he is prepared to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation or surrender before the court, he apprehends that his bail application will not be considered on the date of filing and he will be remanded to custody as non-bailable offences were incorporated in the case. So, he has no other option except to approach this court seeking the following relief:
“To direct the investigating officer in Crime No:248/2014 of Pothencode Police Station to produce the petitioner before the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate-I, Attingal after interrogation, in the event of his surrender and thereafter direct the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate-I, Attingal to consider the bail application preferred by the petitioner on merits on the same day.”
3. Considering the nature of relief claimed in the petition, this court felt that this can be disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that his only apprehension is that, though he is prepared to surrender before the court, his bail application will not be considered and he will be remanded to custody and without direction from this court, no orders will be passed by the court below regarding the bail application.
5. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor.
6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant, Pothencode police has registered a case as Crime No.248/2014 Pothencode police station against the petitioner alleging commission of the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 324 and 326 of Indian Penal Code. It is also an admitted fact that the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by this court. The only apprehension of the petitioner is that, if he surrenders before the court below, his bail application will not be considered on the same date and he will be remanded to custody. The apprehension of the petitioner is not genuine, as this court has in several petitions of this nature, time and again, observed that there is a duty cast on the magistrate to consider and dispose of the bail application filed by the accused persons on the date of surrender itself unless there are compelling reasons for not disposing of the same on the date of filing itself or postpone the same to a future date. In fact, there is no necessity to issue any direction to the magistrate as claimed in the petition. However, considering the apprehension raised in the petition, this court feels that the petition can be disposed as follows:
If the petitioner surrenders before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Attingal and moves for regular bail, then, the learned magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the bail application after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor of that court in accordance with law as far as possible on the date of filing of the application itself.
7. With the above direction and observation, the above petition is disposed of.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Abdul Salam vs State Of Kerala

Court

High Court Of Kerala

JudgmentDate
22 May, 2014
Judges
  • K Ramakrishnan
Advocates
  • Sri
  • K K Dheerendrakrishnan