IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2453 of 2009() ---------------------------- CC.5/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------- TONY THADIKKARAN, S/O.ANTONY THADIKKARAN EDATHURUTHY VILLAGE, EDATHURUTHY DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31 / 07 /2009, THE COURT ON 31/07/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2453 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 31st day of July 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent. 2. Petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.5 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur which arose on the final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Mathilakam. Evidence for prosecution was over and petitioner was questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case was posted on 18-06-2009 for hearing. That day petitioner was absent but he was represented by counsel. After hearing both sides, learned magistrate posted the case for judgment on 24-06-2009. There was a direction to the petitioner to be present in court on 24-06-2009. On 24-06-2009 petitioner did not appear nor was he represented. Hence bail bond was cancelled and non-bailment warrant was ordered to the petitioner. That order is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel submits that absence of petitioner on 24-06-2009 not willful. On that day, marriage of the daughter of petitioner was being fixed and petitioner had to attend that function. He could not intimate his counsel about his inability to appear in court on 24-06-2009. Learned counsel requested that the order canceling bail may be set aside. 3. Having heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor, I Crl.R.P.No.2453 of 2009 2 do not think that it is necessary to set aside the order canceling bail as no illegality, irregularity or impropriety is involved. Instead, proper course open to the petitioner is to seek bail from the court below on executing fresh bond with appropriate sureties. I find no reason to think that absence of petitioner in the court below on 24-06-2009 was willful. That being the situation, petitioner can approach learned magistrate with a petition for his release on bail. If any such petition is filed, learned magistrate will consider the petition in the facts and circumstances stated above and pass appropriate orders without delay. Since petitioner has already been on bail, learned magistrate can after hearing both sides pass appropriate orders on the date of petition for bail itself. Resultantly this revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate petition for bail before learned magistrate. It is directed that execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance for a period of three weeks from this day. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/