IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 932 of 2009() -------------------------------- S.C. NO. 9/2008 WHICH IS CONVERTED AS L.P.31/2008 ON 31.7.2008 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM S.C. NO. 264/06 DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ 4TH ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- PRAVEEN, S/O.KOCHU, NATTAPPILLY HOUSE, ASOKAPURAM, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE. BY ADVOCATE. SMT.A.SREEKALA RESPONDENTS/ STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPAD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. 932 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This is an application filed to quash all further proceedings in S.C. No. 9 of 2008 pending before the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ernakulam and also to recall a non bailable warrant and grant him bail on the date of the filing of application itself. The petitioner herein is an absconding accused No.4. It is entered into LP register and is as pending as L.P. case No. 31 of 2008 and non bailable warrant is pending against him. He along with others is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 read with 149 IPC. Now it is contended by learned counsel that the other co-accused have been acquitted by virtue of judgment in S.C No. 264 of 2006 and therefore the present proceedings against this petitioner may be quashed. This point came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLT 552]. This court held that “the judgment rendered in the case of a co accused and the reasoning of the judgment contained therein or appreciation of the evidence therein are not matters to Crl.M.C. 932 of 2009 -2- be taken into account for the purpose of granting any relief to quash the proceedings and thus bar the trial itself. Even when a co accused is acquitted in the very same trial, the other accused may be convicted if they are good reasons to do so.” So the contention that the other accused have been acquitted in separate trial by itself does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the present petitioner is also to be acquitted. Therefore the prayer to quash is rejected. The learned counsel then would contend that he is employed abroad and has come down and therefore when he surrenders he may be granted bail and direction may be issued for a speedy trial. I am afraid, I cannot give those directions as required. He is an absconding accused. I shall direct the Sessions Judge were the matter is pending to consider the bail application, as expeditiously as possible in case the petitioner surrenders and move for an application for bail. In order to enable the learned Sessions Judge to consider the application for bail, surrender as well as moving of application for bail shall be done on the early working hours of a working day. The Crl. M.C. is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE rhs