IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 555 OF 2011() --------------------------------------- CC.1627/2008 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- 1. CHITHRA, W/O.MANIKANDAN, ADIVARAM, PALANI, TAMIL NADU. 2. MURUKAMMA, W/O.VARADARAJ, ADIVARAM, PALANI, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.555 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners, prosecution alleged are accused in C.C. No.1627 of 2008 of the court of leaned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hosdurg. They were involved in crime No.524 of 2010 of the Chakkarakal police station and were granted bail in that case. But the jail authorities did not release them for the reason that they were required to be produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate in C.C. No.1627 of 2008. Petitioner disputed that they are accused in C.C. No.1627 of 2008. Petitioners filed C.M.P. No.4394 of 2010 to release them on bail as if they are not the real accused in C.C. No.1627 of 2008. That application was dismissed which petitioners challenged in this Court in Crl. M.C. No.4118 of 2010 which resulted in Annexure-III, order whereby the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate was given certain directions to ascertain whether petitioners are really involved in C.C. No.1627 of 2008. In the meantime petitioners were granted bail by this Court as per order in Crl. M.C. No.4305 of 2010. Since petitioners failed to appear in court their bail bonds were cancelled and CRL.M.C. No. 555 of 2011 -: 2 :- NBWs were issued against them on 14.12.2010 (Annexure-V) Petitioner challenges Annexure-V, order dated 14.12.2010. Learned counsel contended that the enquiry directed by this Court in Annexure-III, order has not been done by the learned Magistrate. It is also submitted that non-appearance of petitioners in court on 14.12.2010 was due to the second petitioner delivering a child and first petitioner looking after the mother and child. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. I do not find reason to quash Annexure-V, order dated 14.12.2010 since it is a case where bail bond stood forfeited by non-compliance with the conditions of the bond. But I am inclined to grant some relief to the petitioners to appear in the court below and seek regular bail Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case disposed of in the following lines: (i) NBWs issued against petitioners will stand in abeyance for a period of three weeks from this day. (ii) Petitioners shall appear before the CRL.M.C. No. 555 of 2011 -: 3 :- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hosdurg (C.C. No.1627 of 2008) during the said period of three weeks and seek regular bail. (iii) If any such application is preferred learned Magistrate shall consider the circumstances under which petitioners failed to appear in court on 14.12.2010 and pass appropriate orders. (iv) Learned Magistrate may also consider whether petitioners could be released on bail on the strength of the same sureties who executed the bond having regard to the difficulties of petitioners who belong to Tamil Nadu to arrange local sureties in case bail is granted. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv