IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 4820 OF 2010() ---------------------------------------- CC.821/2010 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------------------------------- K.NOUJESH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.AMBUKUNHI, PAYYANNUR AMSOM, KAVVAI, GANDHI NAGAR COLONY. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.4820 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 08th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in C.C. No.821 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur for offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that since petitioner was working abroad learned Magistrate granted him exemption under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Evidence of prosecution was recorded in the presence of his counsel without disputing the identity of petitioner and while so, counsel failed to appear in court on a particular day (18.03.2010). Learned Magistrate cancelled the bail and issued non-bailable warrant to the petitioner. Later petitioner was granted bail subject to stringent conditions. The prayer in this petition is to lift some of the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate as per Annexure-3, order granting bail. Leaned counsel submitted that throughout petitioner was being represented by counsel, there was no dispute regarding the identity of petitioner and hence the condition directing petitioner to surrender his passport and informing the CRL.M.C. No. 4820 of 2010 -: 2 :- Passport Authority about the same was not necessary. 2. It is seen that when the application under Sec.205 of the Code was moved by the petitioner and rejected by the learned Magistrate, petitioner approached this Court in Crl. M.C. 4560 of 2010 and this court by Annexure-2 order dated November 18, 2010 found no reason to interfere with the said order but permitted petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and place the circumstances under which his counsel could not appear on the relevant day. This Court directed that if any such application is preferred learned Magistrate was to pass appropriate orders bearing in mind that if petitioner is prepared to proceed with the case and the case will not unnecessarily be protracted it is not in the interest of justice to take coercive steps. It is thereafter that by Annexure-3, order learned Magistrate has granted bail to the petitioner imposing conditions. It would appear that as directed in Annexure-2, order petitioner has not so far moved the learned Magistrate a petition under Sec.205 of the Code. That was the proper course available to the petitioner, also in view of Annexure-2, order. Hence I do not find reason to interfere under Sec.482 of the Code. Instead petitioner is permitted to move appropriate application under Sec.205 of CRL.M.C. No. 4820 of 2010 -: 3 :- the Code as directed in Annexure-2 order and in case any such application is preferred learned Magistrate shall consider the same having regard to the facts and circumstances and pass appropriate orders. In case application is allowed in favour of the petitioner it is open to the petitioner to move application for lifting or modifying the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate vide Annexure-3, order. With the above directions this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv