IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1587 of 2011() ------------------------- CMP.6233/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... (CRIME NO.1098/2009 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION) ....... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMAD RAFI @ RAFI, S/O.MUHAMMAD BASHEER, THAZHATHETHIL HOUSE, KARIKKAD VILLAGE DESOM, NEAR KARIKKAD LIBRARY. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE AOF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1587 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 01st day of June, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1098 of 2009 of Kunnamkulam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 120(b) and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate granted bail as per Annexure-I, order dated October 16, 2009 subject to conditions which included that “petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail”. The Investigating Officer filed C.M.P. No.6233 of 2009 to cancel the bail contending that petitioner has violated the conditions of bail by getting involved in Crime No.1136 of 2009 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 120(b) and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 2. Learned Magistrate after hearing both sides by Annexure-2, order dated October 27, 2009 cancelled the bail. Annexure-2, order is under challenge. Learned counsel contended that the mere fact that petitioner is made an accused in Crime No.1136 of 2009 does not mean that he has committed any offence. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. CRL.M.C. No.1587 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. Registration of the case is prima facie evidence of involvement of petitioner in the alleged incident. I am unable to accept the contention that to find whether petitioner has committed any offence the court should wait until trial is over and verdict is passed and there is a final decision on that verdict which may take a few years. That was not the intent and purport of the conditions imposed as per Annexure-1, order. The purport of the condition in Annexure-1, order is that petitioner should not get involved in any other case. The FIR in Crime No.1136 of 2009 prima facie shows involvement of petitioner in that case. It is also seen that though Annexure-2, order was passed on October 27, 2009, a challenge to that order is made only in this proceeding filed on 31st May, 2011. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with Annexure-2, order. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is prepared to surrender before learned Magistrate and seek regular bail and in the meantime the warrant issued to petitioner may be kept in abeyance. I am inclined to grant some relief to petitioner in that regard. Resultantly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of granting petitioner three weeks' time from this day to appear in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam CRL.M.C. No.1587 of 2011 -: 3 :- (in Crime No.1098 of 2009) and seek regular bail/recall the warrant. Application for bail/recall of warrant if preferred shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate as expeditiously as possible. Non-bailable warrant issued to the petitioner will stand in abeyance for the said period of three weeks or till petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate, whichever is earlier. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv