Tijomon Joseph vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 10211 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 10211 Ker
Judgement Date : 21 September, 2023

Kerala High Court

Tijomon Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 21 September, 2023

CRL.MC NO. 7706 OF 2023              1



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
 THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA, 1945
                          CRL.MC NO. 7706 OF 2023
     AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 814/2019 OF PRINCIPAL SUB
                    COURT / COMMERCIAL COURT, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/S:
          TIJOMON JOSEPHAGED 36 YEARSS/O. ALICE JOSEPH,
          TESSLA COTTAGE, ARATTUKULAM, MARARIKKULAM NORTH,
          MARARIKULAM NORTH END, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA - ., PIN -
          688523

               BY ADV MATHEW JAMES


RESPONDENT/S:
          STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH
          COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031


OTHER PRESENT:
          RENJITH TR PP


       THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC NO. 7706 OF 2023          2




                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                   ---------------------------------------
                      Crl.M.C. No. 7706 of 2023
                    --------------------------------------
            Dated this the 21st day of September, 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. The petitioner is the accused in SC No. 814/2019 on

the file of the Asst. Sessions Court, Alappuzha. The above case

is chargesheeted alleging offences punishable under Secs.

143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 308 IPC.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner

was not able to appear before the lower court and he is the 9 th

accused. The petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to

surrender before the jurisdictional court and if he surrender

before the jurisdictional court, jurisdictional court may

remand him without considering the 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 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 directions:

1) The petitioner shall surrender before the jurisdictional

court within two weeks from today. If an application for bail

with advance copy to the prosecutor concerned is filed at the

time of surrender by the petitioner, the jurisdictional court

shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law, ideally on the date of surrender itself.