Ajish vs State Of Kerala on 8 April, 2011

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Ajish vs State Of Kerala on 8 April, 2011

Bench: Thomas P.Joseph

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1178 of 2011()


1. AJISH, S/O.VALSALAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. BABU @ SCARIA, PURATHOTTIL, PUTTADIKKARA

4. THANKAMANY, W/O.BABU, PURATHOTTIL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.HARIHARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :08/04/2011

 O R D E R
                   THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
            ====================================
                    Crl. M.C. No.1178 of 2011
            ====================================
               Dated this the 07th day of April, 2011


                            O R D E R

Petitioner is the counter petitioner in M.C. No.94 of 2011 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Devikulam. He has been visited with Annexure-III, notice purportedly under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") asking him to appear on 08.04.2011 and show cause why he shall not execute a bond. Petitioner states that he has been falsely implicated and apprehends remand on his appearance before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Learned counsel requests this Court to quash Annexure-III, notice. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

2. In Annexure-III, notice dated March 30, 2011 the circumstance under which that notice is issued has clearly been stated. Notice also states that petitioner has to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 08.04.2011 and show cause why he shall not be ordered under Secs.107 and 111 of the Code to execute a bond for `5,000/-. On going through the relevant provisions I find that being a notice issued under Sec.111 of the CRL.M.C. No. 1178 of 2011 -: 2 :- Code when the person to whom notice is served appears and shows cause the Sub Divisional Magistrate has to proceed in accordance with Sec.116 of the Code. There is no justification for apprehension of petitioner. However, I make it clear that in case the Sub Divisional Magistrate proposes to pass any order directing petitioner to execute the bond petitioner shall be given sufficient time for the purpose so that in the meantime petitioner can challenge the said order if he is so advised.

Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed with the above direction.

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

vsv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court