SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5614

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
BENNY KOSHY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 10965 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.2/2007



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.R.SASITH, SMT.R.K.CHIRUTHA, SMT.ANJANA SURESH.E, SMT.REETHU JACOB, SMT.ANJITHA S.
For the Respondents: PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH

Non-compliance with court orders impacts the appeal; rights preserved for bail application.

Headnote:The petitioner's application seeking to quash proceedings against him in light of the acquittal of co-accused was dismissed. The court noted the petitioner's failure to obey previous orders for surrender. The petitioner's right to surrender and seek bail was preserved. The court highlighted that the charges were under IPC and the Arms Act. Key issues revolved around compliance with court orders and the implications of co-accused acquittals. The court concluded with the dismissal of the application while safeguarding the petitioner's rights regarding bail.

Table of Content
1. application to quash proceedings on grounds of co-accused acquittal. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner failed to comply with court's surrender order. (Para 4)
3. court's discretion to dismiss application while preserving bail rights. (Para 5 , 6)

ORDER

The criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the 1st accused in C.C.No.1734/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chengannur, which has originated from Crime No.2/2007 registered by the Venmony Police Station, Alappuzha, alleging he commission of the offences punishable under Sections 447 , 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 (1) of the Arms Act .

2. The petitioner has filed the criminal miscellaneous case on the assertion that the other accused in the crime have been acquitted by Annexure A2 judgment. The petitioner is at par with the accused persons covered under Annexure A2 judgment. Therefore, based on Annexure A2 judgment, the entire proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed.

3. When the Crl.M.C came up for consideration on

18.12.2025, this Court had directed the petitioner, who was reported to be employed in abroad, to come down to India and get himself enlarged on bail from the Trial Court.

4. Despite the above order, the petitioner has not surrendered before the Trial Court. Subsequently, Crl.M.A.No.1/2026 is filed by the petitioner seeking a further period of two weeks from 15.01.2026 to surrender before the Trial Court.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner has not surrendered till date. The time period sought for in Crl.M.A has also lapsed.

6. Taking into consideration the willful latches on the part of the petitioner by not complying with the directions of this Court, I am not inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I dismiss the Crl.M.C., but by reserving the right of the petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court and file application to get himself enlarged on bail. If such application is filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of the application, especially keeping in mind Annexure A2 judgment passed in favour of other co-accused acquitting them in the crime, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top