YOOSUF KUNJALU Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused 1 and 3 in a prosecution, inter alia, under Section 324 r/w. 149 I.P.C. The petitioners had entered appearance along with the other three accused (altogether there were five accused persons). After the evidence of the prosecution was closed, the matter was posted for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At that stage, the petitioners started absconding. The case against them was split up. The case against the co-accused proceeded. By Annex.I the co-accused, who were available for trial (accused 2, 4 and 5), were found not guilty and acquitted. The case against the petitioners is proceeding. Consequent to their non- appearance, coercive steps have been taken by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) The petitioners have now come before this Court with a prayer that the proceedings against them may also be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in as much as the co- accused have already been found not guilty and acquitted. It is further prayed that, at any rate, direction may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioners on bail when they appear and seek bail. The petitioners apprehend that the learned Magistrate may not consider their applications for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.

(3.) Acquittal of the co-accused is by itself not a reason justifying the prayer for quashing of proceedings by absconding co-accused. This position has been made clear in the decision in Moosa v. S.I. of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552). There is a significant difference in this case as the prosecution evidence is already adduced and it is on the basis of that prosecution evidence that the co-accused have been found not guilty. But even that, according to me, after going through the judgment of acquittal produced as Annex.I, cannot operate as a sufficient reason to justify the claim of the petitioners for premature termination of the proceedings against them. The evidence against accused 1 and 3 (the petitioners herein) appear to be slightly different from the evidence against the acquitted co-accused. I have not intended to express any opinion on merits about the acceptability of the case against the petitioners. I intend only to express the opinion that the acquittal of the co-accused for the reasons shown in Annex.A1 cannot by itself justify premature termination of the proceedings against the petitioners. The prayer for quashing the proceedings cannot therefore succeed.