Jaising Hajusing Solanki vs Ashraf Sayed Muhammed
2021 Latest Caselaw 5558 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

     TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942

                    Crl.MC.No.5718 OF 2018(D)

   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 523/2017 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
                     MAGISTRATE ,THODUPUZHA


PETITIONER/S/ACCUSED:

             JAISING HAJUSING SOLANKI
             DIRECTOR, PETROMAT OIL AND GAS EQUIPMENT PVT OFFICE
             NO. 6, 47 NAVNIDHI BHAVAN, IST FLOOR, 5TH
             KUMBHARWADA, KUMBHARWADA VILLAGE, MAHAD TALUK, MUMBAI

             BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL

RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT:

      1      ASHRAF SAYED MUHAMMED
             PURCHASING MANAGER, ADVANCED LOGISTIC TRADING AND
             CONTRACTING EAST (ALTC) AL-KHOBAR SAUDI ARABIA NOW
             RESIDING AT VARUPOTHUKUDIYIL HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA
             KARA, MARADI VILLAGE

      2      STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

             SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD           ON
16.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.5718 OF 2018(D)

                            2




                      O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in S.T. No.523 of

2017 on the files of the court below. The court below

as per order dated 28.07.2018, cancelled the bail bond

of the petitioner and issued non bailable warrant

against the petitioner and notice to the sureties.

Aggrieved by the said order, this Crl.M.C. has been filed.

2. Service is complete. However, there is no

appearance for the first respondent.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. It appears from the proceedings of the court

below that the petitioner surrendered before the court

below on 12.06.2018 and he was enlarged on bail by Crl.MC.No.5718 OF 2018(D)

the court below. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to

28.07.2018, which was the original posting date of the

case. On that date, the petitioner was absent. However,

an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner,

which was rejected by the court below. The court

below issued non bailable warrant against the

petitioner on that date.

5. It appears from the proceedings of the court

below that an application was filed on behalf of the

petitioner to condone the absence of the petitioner on

28.07.2018. It further appears from the proceedings

that the plea of the petitioner was already recorded on

12.06.2018. It also appears that the case was not

posted for evidence on 28.07.2018. In view of the

above, particularly in view of the fact that an Crl.MC.No.5718 OF 2018(D)

application was filed on behalf of the petitioner to

condone the absence of the petitioner on that date, the

court below ought not to have dismissed the

application and cancelled the bail bond. In the said

circumstances, the court below is directed to permit

the petitioner to execute the bond afresh, if the

petitioner surrenders before the court below with

sureties within one month from today.

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

Sd/-

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE RK Crl.MC.No.5718 OF 2018(D)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/10/2017 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THODPUZHA

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:NIL