Back
2013 Supreme(Ker) 683
High Court of Kerala
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
K.S. Ganesan
Versus
State of Kerala represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Kalamassery Police Station
OP (Crl.). No. 3827 of 2013 (Q)
Decided On : 25-11-2013
For the Petitioner:Shaji Chirayath, Mrs. Jiji M. Varkey, M.M. Shajahan, Mrs. Savitha Ganapathiyatan, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Rajesh Vijayan, Public Prosecutor.
A change in case number due to territorial jurisdiction transfer does not necessitate the accused to execute fresh bail bond or vakalath.
Headnote:
Electricity Act, 2003 - Territorial Jurisdiction - Bail Bond
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in a case under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, sought to continue the same bail bond executed in a previous case transferred due to territorial jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner could continue to be present before the court on the strength of the existing bail bond without the need for fresh vakalath or bail bond.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction, continuation of bail bond
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a mere change of case number due to territorial jurisdiction transfer does not require the accused to execute fresh bail bond or vakalath.
Final Decision: The Original Petition (Criminal) was disposed of, declaring that the petitioner is not liable to file fresh vakalath or fresh bail bond in the case on the files of the 6th Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam.
1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.9 of 2013 on the files of the 6th Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam.
2. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
3. Originally the case was pending before the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur. The petitioner applied for bail. The bail was granted by the said court as per order dated 18.05.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.371 of 2010 in Crime No.1503 of 2009 of Kalamassery Police Station.
4. On 02.06.2010, the 1st respondent filed the Final Report. On 05.07.2010, the petitioner appeared before the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur and filed application requesting to continue the same bail bond executed pursuant to the order in Crl.M.P.No.371 of 2010 in Crime No.1503 of 2009 of Kalamassery Police Station.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application to declare that the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur has no territorial jurisdiction. According to the petitioner the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur has only territorial jurisdiction to try the offence committed within the territorial area of Kunnathukadu, Aluva and Paravur Taluks and Kuzhuppilly and Pallippuram Villages of Kochi Taluk. The learned Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur, therefore accepting the contention of the accused, transferred the case to the 6th Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam pursuant to the orders on such application.
6. The learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam issued summons to the petitioner on 23.08.2013. The petitioner submitted an application for permitting him to continue the same bail bond executed in Calendar Case No.2 of 2010 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur. It is submitted that the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam is not inclined to pass orders on Exhibit P1 application and insist for fresh vakalath and fresh bail application with new set of sureties.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not fair and proper to insist that the petitioner should execute fresh vakalath and fresh bail bond in Calendar Case No.9 of 2013 since Calendar Case No.2 of 2010 has been transferred by the Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur to the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam for want of territorial jurisdiction. It is contended that a mere change of Calendar Case number will not cast upon any powers whatsoever to the learned 6th Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam for insisting the accused to execute fresh bail bond and fresh vakalath.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can continue to be present before the court on the strength of the bail bond executed by him. No fresh vakalath is necessary in the facts of this case.
Accordingly this Original Petition (Criminal) is disposed of declaring that the petitioner is not liable to file fresh vakalath or fresh bail bond in Calendar Case No.9 of 2013 on the files of the 6th Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam.
