IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1344 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.237/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED --------------------------------- K.RAZAK AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER KEDAKKAR (H) KOTALAMUGARU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI SMT.R.DYANA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM 2. B.IBRAHIM,AGED 45 S/O.MUHAMMED, BADIYAR (H) KODALAMUGARU VILLAGE KASARAGOD~ BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED ADV.SMT DYANA R FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.1344 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.237/05 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Kasargode for an offence punishable under Section 379 read with 34 IPC seeks a direction to the said Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail on the date of his surrender itself. 2. Admittedly non bailable warrants of arrest are pending against the petitioner. The circumstances under which those non bailable warrants of arrest came to be issued against the petitioner are not discernible to this Court. It is only proper that the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks regular bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of permitting the petitioner to surrender before the learned Magistrate and file an application for regular bail within a period of two weeks from today. In case the petitioner complies with the above condition, he shall be released on bail on appropriate conditions. The petitioner may also ,in the meanwhile, plead for a discharge on Crl.M.C.No.1344 of 2008 2 the the ground that the matter has been settled between him and the de facto complainant, since the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also confirms the fact that there has been a subsequent settlement of the dispute. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj