AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 232 wordsBechu Kurian Thomas, J
Petitioner is the accused in S.C. No. 1198 of 2011 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal. Due to non-appearance of the petitioner from 2019 onwards, Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued against him.
According to Sri. T. Kabil Chandran, the learned counsel the warrant was issued against the petitioner due to his non-appearance as he had gone abroad in connection with his employment and that there was no willful default on his part. It was also submitted that though petitioner is willing to appear and apply for bail, he apprehends that the court will remand him to custody before considering the application.
I have heard Sri. K.A. Noushad, the learned Public prosecutor also.
Even though warrant was issued against the petitioner for his default in appearing before the court, I am of the view that considering the willingness expressed by the petitioner to participate in the trial, a direction can be issued to consider the applications for recall of warrant and for bail in a time bound manner.
Accordingly, if the petitioner appears before the learned Sessions Court on or before 13.04.2023 and file applications for recall for warrant and for bail, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge shall consider those applications and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the same day itself.
The Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.