IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 18TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3462 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.490/2007(NOW PENDING AS LPC NO.2/2008 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- K.DHANESH, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 33, ELECTRICIAN, KANI HOUSE, KANNADIPARAMBA, MATHODAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE, OFFICER, VALAPATANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3462 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of September, 2008 O R D E R Admit. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the public prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 2. The fourth respondent in C.C.No.667/05 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur is the petitioner before me. The petitioner along with six others were charge sheeted by the second respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447 and 506(1) read with Section 149 IPC. The petitioner and others faced trial in the court below and according to petitioner, at the stage of recording the statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner had to go abroad in connection with employment and therefore, the case against him was split up and refiled as C.C.No.490/07. The case against the other accused were proceeded with and ended in acquittal as per Annexure AII judgment. The petitioner is now back at his native place on vacation. He is prepared to surrender before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kannur. But, his apprehension is that he may be remanded to judicial custody on account of his long absence from the trial court. It is his further apprehension that the Crl.M.C.No.3462/2008 2 trial may be prolonged and he will loose his employment. 3. Annexure AII judgment shows that the other accused who faced trial before the learned Magistrate were acquitted as per the judgment dated 26.9.2007. But, the petitioner has to face the trial not withstanding that. 4. So far as the apprehension of the petitioner is concerned, it is not proper for this Court to issue direction to the learned Magistrate regarding grant of bail. But, certainly, the learned Magistrate will take into account, in case an application for bail is presented by the petitioner on his surrendering before the learned Magistrate, whether the detention of the petitioner is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Magistrate will also take note of the fact that the other accused have been acquitted as per Annexure AII judgment and that the petitioner is ready to face the trial. It will be open to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek bail with notice to the law officer concerned. The learned Magistrate shall expedite the trial and disposal of the case against the petitioner. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of. THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, JUDGE csl