Rahul v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/29TH PHALGUNA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1735 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 581/2013 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. .....** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------** **RAHUL, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. RAJAN, MUPPATTIYIL HOUSE, PANMANA VILLAGE, POLODI, EDAPPALLIKKOTTA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 583.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU.** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER:** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,** **CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, (NOTICE TO WHOM MAY BE SERVED ON THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM).** ## **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1735 of 2014** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE A1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING IN SUKWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB REPORTED IN (2009) 7 SCC 559. ANNEXURE A2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING IN MUKESH KISHANPURIA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL REPORTED IN 2010 (5) SCR 702.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1735 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of March, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the accused in Crime No.581/2013 of Chavara Police Station, for issuing direction to the magistrate, to consider the bail application if any and pass appropriate orders on the date of filing the application itself under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the ‘Code’). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner was implicated an accused in Crime No.581/2013 on the file of the Chavara Police Station, alleging offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, against six accused persons including the present petitioner. The allegation was that, on 02.04.2013 at about 8.00 p.m., Crl.M.C. No.1735 of 2014 2 accused Nos.1 to 6 due on previous enmity towards the defacto-complainant, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at Thattassery, with a common object of assaulting the defacto-complainant and inflicted grievous injuries on him and thereby all of them have committed the above said offences. The allegations were not correct and the name of the petitioner was not shown in the first information report and there is no evidence to connect the petitioner in the incident. There was delay in lodging the first information report as well. So the petitioner moved an anticipatory bail application before this court as B.A.No.1597/2014 and thereafter he had withdrawn the same. He intends to surrender before the concerned magistrate court and move for regular bail but the normal procedure is that, the magistrate will not consider the bail application and remand the accused persons and then only the bail application will be considered. So he has no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the Crl.M.C. No.1735 of 2014 3 ## following reliefs: i) Direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Karunagappally to consider either the application for regular bail or the application for interim bail on the date of filing the application itself in Crime No.581 of 2013 of Chavara Police Station, Kollam District. ii) Grant two weeks time to the petitioner to surrender before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, in Crime No.581 of 2013 of Chavara Police Station, Kollam District, or before the Investigating officer in the said crime and for applying for bail. iii) and grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision reported in **Sukhwant Sigh v. State of Punjab (2009 (7) SCC 559) and Mukesh Kishanpuria v. State of West Bengal (2010 (5) SCR 702)** . 4. Considering the nature of relief claimed in the petition, this court felt that, the petition itself can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, Crl.M.C. No.1735 of 2014 4 the apprehension of the petitioner is that, his bail application will not be considered by the magistrate court, on the date of filing the application itself and he is likely to be remanded and passing of orders in the bail application will be postponed. 6. The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. It is an admitted fact that, in respect of the incident happend on 02.04.2013, a crime was registered and subsequently the present petitioner was also implicated as accused. The case of the petitioner was that, since he was not implicated as accused in the first information report, later he has been falsely implicated. Such an assumption or presumption cannot be drawn at this stage. Merely because, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in first information report is not a ground to doubt his subsequent implication of the petitioner in the first information report. There is no dispute regarding the 5 Crl.M.C. No.1735 of 2014 prepositions laid down in the decisions reported in **Sukhwant Sigh & Mukesh Kishanpuria's** decisions cited (supra). Even in those cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only held that, it is for the magistrate to exercise discretion, while considering the bail applications and it cannot be unnecessarily prolonged. The courts are bound to pass appropriate orders in the bail application filed by the accused persons on their surrender, as far as possible on the date of surrender itself, unless other circumstances warrant postponement of the same to a future date. Even in such cases, if the court feels that, interim bail has to be granted, that also can be considered. But it is not mandatory and that depends upon the circumstances of each case, which has to be analysed by the court on the basis of the materials available before that court to exercise such directions. So the apprehension of the petitioner that, if he surrenders before the court below, his bail application will not be considered and he will be unnecessarily Crl.M.C. No.1735 of 2014 6 remanded by the court below is without any basis at this stage. In fact there is no necessity to issue any direction as such claimed in the petition for the reasons have already mentioned above. There is a duty cast on the magistrate to dispose of the bail application on the same day itself, as far as possible. However, considering the apprehension mentioned in the petition, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows: If the petitioner surrenders before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, in Crime No.581/2013 of Chavara Police Station and moves for regular bail, then the magistrate is directed to consider that bail application, after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor of that court and dispose of that application in accordance with law, as far as possible on the date of filing of the application itself. Crl.M.C. No.1735 of 2014 7 With the above direction and observation the petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned magistrate court, immediately. Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss