Kerala High Court
Crl.MC/9667/2022 of ANANDAN Vs STATE OF KERALA on 30 December 2022
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 9TH POUSHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 9667 OF 2022 CP 56/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PALAKKAD, CRIME No.651/2018 OF WALAYAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 9TH POUSHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 9667 OF 2022
CP 56/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PALAKKAD, CRIME No.651/2018 OF WALAYAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.5:
ANANDANAGED 42 YEARSBOLUVAMPATTI, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU., PIN – 641 109
SON OF BALA GURU, 2/237, RAJAJI STREET,
BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 018
BY SRI. RENJITH GEORGE, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON30.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 30[th] day of December,2022
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
thThe petitioner is the 5 accused in CP No.56/22 on the files of the JudicialFirst Class Magistrate -I, Palakkad. The above case is charge-sheeted against thepetitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 367,368, 506(I), 329, 397 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner isready to surrender before the committal court. The petitioner apprehend that hewill be remanded if he surrenders before the committal court because thewarrant is pending.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned PublicProsecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigatingofficer completed the investigation without arresting the petitioner and that itselfshows that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not necessary. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment in Aman PreetSingh Vs. CBI through Director in Crl. Appeal No.929/2021 (reported in LL2021 SC 416) and Radhakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala reported in [2021 (2)
KLD 581]. Since the petitioner is ready to surrender before the Judicial FirstClass Magistrate Court- I, Palakkad, I think there can be a direction to thecommittal court to consider the bail application in accordance with law on thedate of surrender itself.
In the light of the above submission, I think the above Crl.M.C itself canbe disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The petitioner is free to surrender before the committalcourt within three weeks from today.
(ii) If any bail application is filed with advance copy to theprosecutor concerned, the committal court will consider thesame on the date of surrender itself, in the light of thedecision in Aman Preet Singh Vs. CBI through Director in Crl. Appeal No.929/2021 and Radhakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala (supra).
(iii) For a period of three weeks, the coercive steps againstthe petitioner are stayed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9667/2022
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
Annexure1TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT INCRL. M.C NO. 5593/2022.