IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 205 OF 2023 CRIME NO.16/2018 OF Pariyaram Forest Range Office, Thrissur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 254/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, CHALAKUDY PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

RAJU M.K AGED 52 YEARS S/O KOPPAN, AGED 52 YEARS, MUNDOLY HOUSE, KANJIRAPILLI DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUNIPPARA, 680721.

BY ADVS.

K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN JISSMON A KURIAKOSE SANAL C.S NIKITA J. MENDEZ SRUTHY N. BHAT(K/000579/2017)

P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)(K/421/1984)

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERELA STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

BY ADV.

SRI. HRITHWIK C.S, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

23.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

------------------------------

Crl.M.C.No.205 of 2023 ----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2023

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).

2. Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.254/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Chalakudy arising from Crime No.16/2018 of Pariyaram Forest Range Office, Thrissur.

3. The petitioner submits that a warrant is pending against the petitioner and the petitioner is ready to surrender before the jurisdictional court. But the apprehension of the petitioner is that, if he surrender before the jurisdictional court, the jurisdictional court may remand him without considering his bail application.

4. The Public Prosecutor submitted that no such apprehension is necessary and this court may not pass any direction to the lower court to release the petitioner on bail and that is a matter to be decided by the trial court.

5. This court in Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi v.

State of Kerala and another (2009 (3) KHC 471) relied on the dictum laid down by another learned Single Judge in Biju S. Praveen v. State of Kerala and Another (2007 (2) KLT 280) considered this point. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Vineeth Somarajan's case (supra).

“14. The apprehension of the petitioner is that if he appears before the Trial Court, he would be remanded to judicial custody.

In Biju v. State of Kerala, 2007 KHC 3436 : 2007 (2) KLT

280 : 2007 (1) KLJ 713 : ILR 2007 (2) Ker. 26 : 2007 (1) KLD 486, Justice A. K. Basheer, after noticing the practice that is being followed by some learned Magistrates (vide paragraph 16) held at paragraph 18 thus:

'18. As mentioned earlier, Criminal Courts should always be careful while passing orders on bail applications which in effect deal with personal liberty. In cases where the Court decides to send an accused to custody pending trial, it must be ensured that the Court applies its mind judicially and judiciously with particular reference to the facts and circumstances of the case. The mere fact that the accused had failed to respond to a summons or that the Court had to issue non bailable warrant to compel his presence will not ipso facto empower the Criminal Court to remand the accused to custody as a punitive measure when he appears before the Court on his own volition or is produced in execution of the warrant. The bail application that may be moved on his behalf has to be considered and orders should be passed on the same day itself since personal liberty of an accused cannot be curtailed in a whimsical or disdainful manner.' I am in respectful agreement with the dictum laid down in Biju v. State of Kerala.”

6. In the light of the above dictum laid down by this court, I think the apprehension of the petitioner/s that the jurisdictional court will remand the accused without application of mind is unnecessary. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of with the following dire