SREEKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is a court which has chosen to exercise its discretion under S.204 Cr.P.C. to issue a summons and not a warrant to an accused facing allegations of commission of a non-bailable warrant offence justified or correct in remanding such an accused to custody when he appears in court despite the fact that he is willing to offer bail This question is thrown up for consideration in this Cri. M.C.

(2.) The petitioner, along with the co-accused, faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under S.326 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to the petitioner, he is a cancer patient undergoing treatment from 2003. The police were not too convinced about the involvement of the petitioner or the need to arrest the petitioner. Considering the circumstances of the petitioner, the police, it is submitted, have filed a trial report without formally arresting the petitioner and releasing him on bail. Final report has been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-1, Punalur, has issued a summons to the petitioner under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is to appear before the learned Magistrate on 26.8.2008. He has now come to this Court with this petition seeking directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) What is the nature of directions that the petitioner wants The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a practice in that court that notwithstanding the fact that only a summons has been issued under Section 204 Cri.P.C accused persons appearing in response to such summons will be remanded to custody for the short reason that the police have shown them as absconding. Apprehending the same treatment at the hands of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner has now come before this Court.