Kerala High Court
Sunil Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2014
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/21ST MAGHA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 1005 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
CRIME NO. 912/2013 OF KAREELAKKULANGARA POLICE STATION.
.....
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 TO 6:
-----------------------------------------------
1. SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.KUMARAN, HAREESH BHAVANAM,
AYIKKADUMURI, CHEPPAD, CHINGOLI.
2. RAJAN, AGED 31 YEARS,
S/O.SURENDRAN, MURUKALAYAM, CHINGOLI.
3. JAYARAM, AGED 24 YEARS,
S/O.VIKRAMAN, NEDIYATHUTHEKKATHIL, CHINGOLI.
4. SATHEESH, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.SANKARAN KUTTY,ANIZHAM, CHINGOLI.
5. JAYARAJ, AGED 31 YEARS,
S/O.NADARAJAN, PANTHRANDIL VEEDU, CHINGOLI.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR,
SMT.A.SALINI LAL.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR,
KAREELAKKULANGARA POLICE STATION.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. P.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
Crl.MC.No. 1005 of 2014
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE-1. COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC NO.5484/2013.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Crl. M.C. No.1005 of 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2014
O R D E R
This criminal miscellaneous case is field by the petitioners arraying themselves as accused Nos. 2 to 6 in Crime No.912/2013 of Kareelakkulangara Police Station, for a direction to consider the bail application by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Harippad, on the date of surrender itself under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code).
2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioners are alleged to have committed the offences under Section 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 118(d) of the Police Act. The allegation is that, the petitioners threatened the defacto- complainant, who is the Sub Inspector of Police, Kareelakkulangara, in front of Rose Villa House, near Kanjoor temple with an intention to create law and order Crl. M.C. No.1005 of 2014 2 problem and thereby they have committed the offence punishable under Section 506(i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 118(d) of Police Act. Since the defacto-complainant is the Sub Inspector of Police, the petitioners are not able to surrender before the investigating officer, as they apprehend harassment at the hands of the police. But they are prepared to surrender before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Harippad. They also apprehend that, the learned magistrate will not consider the bail application, on which date they surrender before that court. The first accused approached this court and this court passed Annexure-A1 order. So the petitioner has also approached this court under Section 482 of the 'Code', seeking the following reliefs:
i) To direct the, Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Harippad to consider the bail application on the date of surrender itself in crime No.912/13 of the Kareelakkulangara Police Station.
ii) Pass such other orders that may deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court.
Crl. M.C. No.1005 of 2014 3
3. Considering the nature of the relief claimed, this court felt that this application can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. In order to ascertain whether all the petitioners were made accused in the case, the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get instructions from the investigating officer and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, petitioners Nos.1 and 4 alone were so far identified, apart from the first accused in the case and a report is to be filed before the concerned magistrate court, namely, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Harippad to that effect. The apprehension of the petitioners that, if bail application is filed, that will not be disposed of by the court is without any basis because there is a duty cast on the magistrate to dispose of the bail application at the earliest possible time. So considering these circumstances, I feel Crl. M.C. No.1005 of 2014 4 that the petition itself can be disposed of with the following direction:
If the petitioners 1 and 4 who are likely to be implicated as accused Nos.2 and 3 by filing a report, surrender before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Harippad, and move for regular bail, then the learned magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the bail application, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate on the date of surrender itself, after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor of that court in accordance with law, considering the circumstances of the case. If other petitioners surrender before that court and if that court is satisfied that they are also implicated as accused in the case, then the magistrate is directed to dispose of the bail applications filed by them Crl. M.C. No.1005 of 2014 5 also, as directed above.
With the above direction, the petition is disposed of. Communicate this order tot he concerned Magistrate court, immediately.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss