IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2012/28TH ASHADHA 1934 Crl.MC.No. 2443 of 2012 (A) PETITIONERS : - 1. SHAJU KURUPPATH AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, KURUPPATH HOUSE, KOONAMMAVU, VALLUVALLY. 2. SAJI MECHERI @ SAJEEV KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, MECHERI HOUSE, KOONAMMAVU, VALLUVALLY. 3. XAVIER KALLOOR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, KALLOOR HOUSE, KOONAMMAVU, VALLUVALLY. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIV NAMBISAN RESPONDENT : - STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. R. RANJITH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 2443 of 2012 (A) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.04.2012 PREFERRED BY THE FIRST AND SECOND PETITIONERS TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE A2 : COPY OF THE RESOLUTION SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD PETITIONER BEFORE THE GRAMA SABHA. ANNEXURE A3 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF HEARING OF GRAMA SABHA DATED 05.08.2011. ANNEXURE A4 : COPY OF ADMISSION AND DISCHARGE REFERENCE CARDS 4 IN NUMBER DATED 30.06.2012. ANNEXURE A5 : COPY OF THE F.I. STATEMENT IN CRIME 193/12 OF VARAPUZHA P.S. DATED 30.6.12. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- [ENTITY],J. Crl.M.C. NO. 2443 of 2012 Dated this the 19th day of July, 2012 ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in a crime registered for offences under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] and [SECTION] of [ACT], for short [ACT]. Limited prayer canvassed in the petition is for issuing a direction to the Magistrate to release the petitioners on bail on their surrender before him subject to such conditions as may deem fit and proper to secure their presence for further proceedings and trial, if need be. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are disabled from seeking for pre-arrest bail, in view of the interdiction placed under [SECTION] of the [ACT], though they have got a case that none of the ingredients covered by the aforesaid act are made out by the allegations imputed. They apprehend of detention in Judicial custody after remand in case they surrender before the Magistrate, according to the learned counsel relying on [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] contended that the Magistrate has ample jurisdiction to grant bail to the accused persons proceeded against for offences punishable under [ACT] as the interdiction placed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has application only with respect to offences punishable for imprisonment for life or death. Learned counsel further submits, as a matter of course, taking note of the interdiction covered by [SECTION] of the [ACT], what is being followed is remand of the persons to Judicial custody declining their request for bail.
2. It is open to the petitioners to canvass for their enlargement on bail by the Magistrate though they are proceeded for the offences punishable under the [ACT]. In case, the petitioners surrender before the Magistrate within ten days and advance notice on their bail application is given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Magistrate shall consider such application expeditiously, preferably, on the same day, if not prevented by any exceptional circumstances. In considering their bail application the Magistrate has to take note of the decisions referred to above, which would indicate that he has competency to enlarge the petitioners though they are proceeded for offences under the [ACT]. I make it clear that the observations made shall not be construed as placing any impediment to the Magistrate in deciding the application for bail on its merits in accordance with law.
Subject to the above observations, the petition is disposed of.
[ENTITY] JUDGE.
DMR/-