HARIDAS P NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thepetitioner, an advocate practicing at Ernakulam, has filed this application forbail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The petitioner was arrested on 13.4.2007 and he was ordered to be detained in judicial custody.The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 224, 225(ii Part) and 120-B(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The petitioner appeared for the third accused in Crime No.3 of 2007 of Chittur Excise Range.The said accused surrendered before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chittur and sought bail.He had moved a bail application before this Court and a direction was issued by this Court to surrender before the Magistrate's Court. Crl.M.P.No.1016 of 2007 was filed by the said third accused in Crime No.3 of 2007 for bail.The learned Magistrate rejected the application for bail and remanded to judicial custody the third accused in Crime No.3 of 2007 till 24.4.2007. It is stated in the order passed by the learned Magistrate, produced as Annexure A in this case, that the said order was passed at 3.45 p.m. and the sitting was over thereafter. It is stated that the Police reported to the learned Magistrate that the third accused in Crime No.3 of 2007 escaped from custody.A statement written by the Head Constable, Chittur Police Station was submitted to the learned Magistrate, wherein it was stated that the petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the advocate') was involved in the escape of the third accused in Crime No.3 of 2007.The statement given by the Head Constable was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Chittur under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Crime No.84 of 2007 was registered for offences under Sections 224, 225(ii Part) and 120B(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.It would appear that the advocate was shown as the second accused. The third accused in Crime No.3 of 2007 was arraigned as the first accused.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the other accused are the persons who stood as sureties for the third accused in Crime No.3 of 2007.

(3.) It is stated that the advocate was produced before the learned Magistrate at 11.50 p.m. at night on 13.4.2007, when he was remanded to judicial custody. It is further stated that immediately an application for bail was moved at the residence of the learned Magistrate, but the application was posted for hearing to 16.4.2007.On 16.4.2007, the bail application was heard and by the order dated 17.4.2007, the application was rejected.It is also stated in the present bail application that the petitioner herein moved an application for bail before the Court of Session, Palakkad on 18.4.2007, which was adjourned to 19.4.2007 and then to 20.4.2007. This bail application is moved in these facts and circumstances.