The court reinforced the principle that coercive proceedings should not proceed pending the consideration of a discharge application as per judicial directions.

ORDER

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in C.C.No.196 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class-I (Forest Offences), Nedumangad ('trial court' for brevity), which has originated from Crime No.822 of 2022 registered by the Palode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 419 , 463, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506(1) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code .

2. The petitioner stated in the criminal miscellaneous case that, by Annexure-A1 order dated 31.01.2025, this Court had directed the trial court to consider the application for discharge filed by accused 1 and 2 in the above crime and to pass a reasoned order, after adverting to the legal and factual contentions raised by the said accused persons. It was further directed that, if an application seeking exemption from personal appearance is also filed, the same should also be considered. Notwithstanding the passing of the above order and the petitioner filing an application for discharge, the trial court has not considered the said application; instead, has issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner, as reflected in Annexure-A4 B-Diary. The non- consideration of the discharge application and the issuance of the non-bailable warrant are ex facie erroneous and unjustifiable. Hence, the Crl.M.C. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondents.

4. By Annexure-A1 order, this Court had disposed of Crl.M.C. No.7027 of 2023 by directing accused 1 and 2 (the petitioner and the 2^nd accused) to file an application for discharge and also seek permanent exemption until the discharge application is decided. Admittedly, the petitioner filed Annexure-A2 discharge petition on 22.09.2025. However, the trial court has not considered the said application on the ground that the petitioner has not got himself enlarged on bail.

5. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the trial court by communication dated 05.03.2026, has informed this Court that the said application has not been considered since the petitioner has not got himself enlarged on bail or filed an application for permanent exemption.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed applications for exemption on all posting dates. Therefore, this is only to harass the petitioner that the coercive proceedings have been initiated.

7. On a consideration of the specific directions passed by this Court in Annexure-A1 order, I direct the trial court to consider and dispose Annexure-A2 application in accordance with the law as directed in Annexure-A1 order, without insisting for the petitioner to get himself enlarged on bail. The trial court is further directed to dispose of Annexure-A2 application within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order. Until such time orders are passed on Annexure-A2 application, all further coercive proceedings as against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.