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