THOMAS ALVA EDISON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal miscellaneous case was filed by the petitioner, who is the accused in S.C. No. 92/2012 pending before the 5th Additional District Court, Ernakulam, challenging the order dismissing the absent petition and issuing non-bailable warrant against the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code').

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused in crime No. 441/2009 of Ernakulam Central police station, alleging commission of the offence under Section 302, 307 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation final report was filed and it was taken on file as S.C. No. 92/2012 and made over to 5th Additional District Court, Ernakulam (Edamalayar) for disposal. Earlier as per Annexure-1 order in Bail Application No. 2624/2009 dated 19.05.2009, this court has granted bail to the petitioner and he was regularly appearing before the court. On 07.05.2014, the case was posted for hearing on the question of framing charge and on that day he informed the counsel that, he was not in a position to appear before the court, but unfortunately because of the heavy traffic block, his counsel could not reach the court in time and file the application for condoning his absence and the case was called and his bail bond was forfeited and non-bailable warrant was issued and notice to sureties were sent and posted to 05.06.2014. On 05.06.2014, as per the instruction of the counsel, petitioner was present before the court and he moved the bail application but the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application and remanded the petitioner to custody and thereafter he approached this court by filing Bail Application No. 4295/2014 and as per Annexure-A2 order again bail was granted to the petitioner and he had executed the bail bond and he was released on bail. Again on 10.07.2014 when the case was posted for framing charge, the petitioner could not appear before the court, because he was laid up and that fact was informed by the counsel on 09.07.2014 and the learned counsel applied for condoning his absence as Crl. M.P. No. 910/2014 stating the reason, but the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application and issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. He is not able to procure new sureties. According to the petitioner, the order passed by the court below is illegal and the court has no power to forfeit the bail bond executed by the petitioner and sureties as per the direction of this court and so he has no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.