Criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioners, who are accused in C.C.1360/2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna, seeking direction to the magistrate to consider and dispose of the bail applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioners are arrayed as accused in C.C.1360/2013, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna, alleging offences under Section 447, 427 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. There were civil disputes between the parties. Petitioners were arrested and released on bail during crime stage from the police station itself, as the offences are bailable in nature.
Petitioner received summons to appear before the Court below on 05/06/2014 but on that date, since sureties were not available, petitioners appeared through counsel and submitted an application to condone their absence but that was dismissed on the first posting date itself and non- bailable warrant has been issued against them and notice issued against the sureties. They are prepared to surrender before the concerned magistrate court, but they apprehends that, they will be remanded to custody and their bail application will not be considered. So the petitioner has no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief:
“It is humbly most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna to recall the non- bailable warrant issued against the petitioners and the coercive steps taken against the sureties for the non- appearance on 2.5.2014 and the bail application, to be field by the petitioners, to be considered on the same date of surrender itself, in the interests of justice”.
3. Considering the nature of relief claimed in the petition, this court felt that, the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. When the application came up for hearing the counsel for the petitioner submitted that though he received summons and appeared through counsel, the application was dismissed and non-bailable warrant was issued and coercive steps have been issued against the sureties as well.
5. The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioners were arrayed as accused in C.C.1360/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna and during crime stage, he was granted bail from the police station itself. It is also in away admitted in the petition itself that on getting summons, he did not appear in person but it was alleged in the petition that the application was filed to condone their absence but that was dismissed and non- bailable warrant was issued and steps have been issued initiated against the sureties as well.
7. I am not at this stage going to the question regarding legality of the action taken by the magistrate for non appearance of the accused, as now there is no evidence before this court on those aspects. However, if the sureties appeared before the magistrate and submitted their explanation stating that accused appeared through counsel, then the learned magistrate can consider that explanation and pass appropriate orders on those applications and decide as to whether further steps have to be taken or not in accordance with law.
8. As regards the other apprehension that, if he surrenders before the court below on account of the pendency of the non-bailable warrant, his bail application will not be considered on the date of filing of the application itself and he will be remanded to custody is not genuine and without any basis, as this court has in several petitions of this nature, time and again expressly observed that, the presiding officers of the criminal courts are duty bound to consider and dispose of the bail applications if any filed by the accused on their surrender, as far as possible, on the date of filing of the application itself, unless compelling circumstance warrant postponement of the same to a future date. So under the circumstances, there is no necessity to issue any direction as such as claimed by the counsel for petitioner at the time of hearing. However, considering the apprehension raised by the petitioner, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows:
If the petitioner surrenders before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna, in C.C.1360/2013 pending before that court and moves for recalling the warrant and release him on bail, then the learned magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of those applications, considering the fact that it is bailable offence and pass appropriate orders after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor of that court, as far as possible, on the date of filing of the application itself in accordance with law. As far as the sureties are concerned, if the sureties appear before that court either themselves or through counsel and file explanation for non-production of the accused or stating the reasons, then the learned magistrate is directed to consider those applications and pass appropriate orders in the proceedings if any initiated against them for violation of the conditions of the bond in accordance with law.
With the above observation and direction, this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss