RATNAKER BHENGRA, J. - (1.) Heard both the counsels.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has said that on this occasion he has not come for quashing of the entire case against him rather he seeks bail. He has taken this Court to the written report, in which, the name of the petitioner is also indicated. However, learned counsel has said that in deposition of the informant, which is at Annexure-2, he has initially said that only two persons were in the vehicle. Later, he has said that he recognised two persons, but, not other persons, indicating that there may have been four persons. However, he did not identify this petitioner in his deposition. Therefore, he has been declared hostile on the point of identification. In the cross-examination, he has said that he has not read the written report and that he had merely given his signature on the document. However, learned counsel has then submitted that in the final form, petitioner's name has been included amongst the charge-sheeted accused. Learned counsel has then taken this Court to all the remaining depositions, right from PW-2 to PW-9 and said that the witnesses from PW-2 to PW-6 have been declared hostile. Learned counsel has said that PW-7, who is the Doctor, has attested regarding the injuries, which are grievous and simple in nature. Learned counsel has said that the injury is only fracture of right ring finger. Then learned counsel has said that PW-8, who is seizure list witness, has also signed on blank paper and that he had no knowledge about the case. Learned counsel has further said that it is only the I.O., who has supported the prosecution case. Therefore, on the basis of evidence, no case is made out against this petitioner. Finally, learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Umesh v. State of Kerala, decided on 03.02.2017, in Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2017 [arising from Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1048 of 2017(arising from Crl. M.P. No. 732 of 2017)].
(3.) Paragraph Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the aforesaid judgment read as under : "5. According to the appellant, since he was not available for trial, trial in his case was separated and the Trial Court proceeded as against all the other accused. In CC No.289/1996, the first accused was convicted and the rest of the accused persons were acquitted and in the CC No.280/1996 all the accused persons have been acquitted. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the continuance of the proceedings before the Magistrate Court, as far as the appellant is concerned, is unnecessary harassment and wastage of time. 6. We find it difficult to appreciate the contention. Even if all contentions taken by the appellant are taken on their face value also, it is for the Magistrate concerned to consider those contentions in an appropriate application filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. 7. In that view of the matter, we do not propose to go into all the contentions taken by the appellant. The appeals are hence disposed of as follows: The appellant shall surrender before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chavakkad, where the criminal cases are pending, within four weeks from today. On thus surrendering, on the appellant's furnishing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand), in each case, along with two solvent sureties for the like amount, the appellant shall be released on bail. The appellant will be free to file applications under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 8. We direct the learned Magistrate to consider the applications, if any filed, having regard to the contentions taken by the appellant and dispose of the same, in accordance with law." ;