IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 16TH MAGHA, 1940
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1494 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1448/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS, PEERUMEDU DATED 18-09-2018
CRIME NO. 302/2018 OF VAGAMON POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
VINUSH, AGED 20 YEARS,
S/O. MARIYADAS, RESIDING AT VATTAPPATHAL,
VAGAMON VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI.RAMESH CHAND – PP.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1494 of 2018
2
ORDER
The petitioner is a young man aged 20 years. He was arrayed
as the sole accused in Crime No.302 of 2018 registered under Sections
498A and 324 of the IPC. He moved an application for bail before the
learned Magistrate. The court below took note of the fact that he had
not attained marriageable age and by order dated 18.9.2018 he was
granted bail subject to conditions.
2. It appears that immediately thereafter, a report was
submitted before the court adding Section 376 of the IPC. On receipt
of the said report incorporating a much graver crime, the learned
Magistrate directed the petitioner to appear before the court below
and execute a fresh bond. When he failed to appear, bail granted to
him was cancelled and coercive proceedings were initiated.
3. This revision petition is filed challenging the order canceling
the bail.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who
submitted that the learned Magistrate was not justified in cancelling
the bail.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted
that there is no error in the procedure adopted by the learned
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1494 of 2018
3
Magistrate. According to him, the learned Magistrate was perfectly
justified in issuing summons to the petitioner to consider whether the
petitioner can be permitted to be on bail even in the changed
circumstances. However, the petitioner did not appear before court
despite grant of several opportunities. The failure of the petitioner to
appear before the learned Magistrate was a blatant violation of the
condition imposed at the time of grant of bail. The learned Public
Prosecutor would also refer to the decision of this Court in Ahmed
Basheer v. Sub Inspector of Police [2013 (4) KHC 58] and Jeri
Cheriyan v State of Kerala [2019 (1) KHC 133] to hammer home
his contention.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced. I have also
gone through the order dated 4.10.2018. It appears that bail was
cancelled due to the persistent absence of the petitioner before the
court below. The order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be
found fault with.
7. The petitioner may either appear before the court below
and seek for his enlargement on bail or he may seek appropriate
remedies from the superior court, which option is left to him. This
Court will not be justified in interfering with the discretion that is to be
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1494 of 2018
4
exercised by the learned Magistrate. However, to enable the petitioner
to seek appropriate remedies, I order that the coercive proceedings, if
any, against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 10
days from today.
This petition will stand disposed of.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE
avs
