MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the accused in S. T. 727/87 on the file of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Trivandrum. He stands charged with offences u/s. 279 and 338 I. P. C. as also u/s. 89 (a) and (b) r/w. S. 118a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. He was granted bail. On full posting dates of the case, petitioner could not appear in court Nor was any representation made or application filed on his behalf. So the bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrant issued. Later, petitioner appeared before court and filed applications for advancing the hearing date of the case, for recalling the warrant issued and for granting bail. Fresh sureties were also present in court. It is the petitioner's case that the learned Magistrate refused to accept application for bail and that filed for recalling the warrant. Learned Magistrate accepted the application for advancing the hearing of the case and dismissed the same. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate is not inclined to grant bail till after his arrest and detention in prison for a few days.

(2.) OFFENCES charged against the petitioner are bailable. On account of his non-appearance on dates to which the case stood posted, the original bail was cancelled. Learned Magistrate thereupon issued non-bailable warrant Since the bail has been cancelled steps have to be taken for forfeiture of the bond and for realisation of the amount covered by it. Independent of this step, when the petitioner appeared and asked for bail, learned Magistrate was bound to pass orders on that application. This is more so in view of the provision contained in S. 446-A of the Code. I do not find any justification on the part of the Magistrate in refusing to accept the application for bail.