BASHEER AHMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in Crime No. 43 of 2008 of Kasaragod Police Station and CC No. 500 of 2008 of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod. A case was registered against the first accused, son of petitioners for offence punishable under S.498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') on the complaint of his wife. When that case was on trial, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate invoked S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), by order dated 18/11/2010 impleaded petitioners as accused 2 and 3. Summons was ordered to them. The case was posted on 13/12/2010. On that day, petitioners applied for exemption through counsel and that was allowed. Since petitioners / accused 2 and 3 did not appear in the Court thereafter, it is stated, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued non - bailable warrants to them. Though, various grounds are urged in this case even including correctness of the order of impleadment of petitioners as additional accused, prayer in the case is only to dispense with personal appearance of petitioners in the Court below. Learned counsel submits that petitioners are aged around 74 years and that the first petitioner being a heart patient is totally bed ridden and unable to go to the Court. Petitioners have produced certain documents showing treatment given to the first petitioner / A2. Learned counsel has requested that in the above circumstance, petitioners may be exempted from personal appearance in Court and that non - bailable warrant issued to them may be quashed. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

(2.) So far as 2nd petitioner / accused 3 is concerned, there is no case of any illness for her or she being bed ridden and unable to go to the Court. Hence, she has to appear in Court and seek regular bail and exemption from appearance.

(3.) So far as the first petitioner is concerned, I am inclined to think that indulgence of this Court is necessary having regard his age and illness and the peculiar situation in which he is placed. It is seen from the documents produced that the first petitioner has been undergoing prolonged treatment for heart deceases. Learned counsel submits that the first petitioner had also undergone inpatient treatment for the said illness. I do not find reason to reject the submission of learned counsel.