IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4147 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.1856/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.2 --------------------------- RAJENDRAPRASAD, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 50 R.B. LAND, 19, IKARAKONAM, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P.SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(CRL.M.C.4147/2011) PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.2.2005 IN CC NO.1856/2005 ON THE FILES OF JFCM, KASARAGOD. ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTORAL IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4147 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 Order The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now arrayed as the second accused in CC No.1856 of 2005 on the file of JFCM Court, Kasaragod. Annexure I is the private complaint in which the second accused was shown as Chandru, S/o. Narayanan. The learned counsel submits that the address of the second accused is totally different from that of the petitioner herein. No summons was actually tendered or served on the petitioner and as such there was no occasion for him to appear before the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel submits that thereafter it seems the name and address of the second accused was corrected as that of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it was done only recently. The petitioner came to know that the warrant was issued against him by the court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, actually there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. Since warrant has been issued, the petitioner apprehends that if he surrenders before the Crl.M.C.4147/2011 2 court below, he may not be granted bail by the learned Magistrate. If what has been stated by the petitioner is correct, I do not think that the learned Magistrate will not accept the submission that may be made by the learned counsel with regard to what has been stated above. It is further submitted that, in fact, there was a case against the complainant and he was taken into custody by the police and only to get out of that case, this private complaint was filed. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the case. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner will surrender before the learned Magistrate within two weeks from today. In the light of what has been stated above, the learned Magistrate will dispose of the bail application as expeditiously as possible. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.4147/2011 3 Crl.M.C.4147/2011 4