Gilbert vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 30, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1401319

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1401319
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Decided On: Oct 30, 2023
Case Number: Crl.MC/8965/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gilbert

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....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 thewarrant. 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 thiscourt, i think the apprehension of the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners, the jurisdictional court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, ideally on the date of surrender itself. 2) in order to enable the petitioners to appear before the court below, coercive proceedings pending against the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks. sd/- p.v.kunhikrishnan jv judge appendix of crl.mc 8965/2023 petitioner annexures annexure 1 true copy of final report in s.c.no. special court for sc/st (poa) act cases of thrissur town police station, thrissur

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 8965 OF 2023 SC 309/2020 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST ATROCITIES ACT CASES, THRISSUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2,4,5 & 6:

1 GILBERT AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, KALATHIL VEEDU, 2 NAVAS AGED 34 YEARS S/O. ALI, EDAVANAKKAD VEEDU, T.K.S PURAM, DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680664 3 GILJO AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, KALATHIL VEEDU, 4 GILSON AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, KALATHIL VEEDU, BY ADVS.M.G.SREEJITH P.JAYA SWAPNALEKHA K.T. VIDYAJITH M. BINCY JOSE ROJIN DEVASSY ANIL KUMAR P.T.

RESPONDENTS/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER IRINGALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125 SMT SREEJA V, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

-------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.8965 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 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. Petitioners are the accused in S.C.No.309/2020 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Thrissur. The grievance of the petitioners is that non-bailable warrant is issued to the petitioners.

3. The petitioners submit that they are ready to

surrender before the jurisdictional court and if they surrender before the jurisdictional court, jurisdictional court may remand them without considering their 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners, the jurisdictional court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, ideally on the date of surrender itself. 2) In order to enable the petitioners to appear before the court below, coercive proceedings pending against the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks. sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JV JUDGE APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8965/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN S.C.NO. SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT CASES OF THRISSUR TOWN POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Gilbert vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan