IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 295 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.733/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------ JAIN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, CHOONDI VILLAGE, NEAR KAILAS COLONY, EDATHALA KARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR (KALLESSERIL) SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 295 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for a direction to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Aluva to permit the petitioner to continue on bail. 2. Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.733 of 2006 on the file of JFCM-I. Aluva. The second accused is no more. Petitioner and the co-accused are stated to have committed offences punishable under Sections 448, 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge was framed on 2.1.2009 and summons were issued to the witnesses on the same day. Petitioner was on bail. Cr..M.C. 295/2010. 2 3. It is pointed out that the petitioner was strictly complying with the bail order and he was present during all postings. Unfortunately on 7.1.2010 the petitioner could not be present due to the mistake committed by the clerk of his counsel. Petitioner submits that there was no wilful laches on his part in not appearing on 7.1.2010. Accordingly, it is pointed out by him that there was no justification for cancelling his bail. 4. There is some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Annexure A1 produced by the petitioner shows that he was regularly appearing before court and he was complying with the terms of bail order. There is no reason to disbelieve him. His absence on 7.1.2010 was not wilful and was due to reasons, which has already been made mention of. This court is of the view that the petitioner shall not be unncessarily penalized. Cr..M.C. 295/2010. 3 In the result, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner will be enlarged on bail on his appearance before the court below on his executing a bond for Rs.5,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court below. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.