High Court Kerala High Court

A.M. Shafi vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2008

Kerala High Court
A.M. Shafi vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2013 of 2008()


1. A.M. SHAFI, AGED 38 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SHAMEEM GAFOOR, S/O. HANEEFA,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. S.I. OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.ANAND

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :26/05/2008

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J
                        ------------------------------------
                       Crl.M.C No.2013 of 2008
                       -------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008

                                    ORDER

Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences

punishable, inter alia, under Section 307 I.P.C. They are arrayed

as accused 4 and 5, it is submitted. As the petitioners have not

so far entered appearance, coercive processes have been issued

against the petitioners. They apprehend imminent arrest.

2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely

innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. They

are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply

for bail. But they apprehend that their application for regular bail

may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in

accordance with law and expeditiously. It is therefore prayed that

directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the

petitioners.

3. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned

Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the

circumstances under which they could not earlier appear before

the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the

Crl.M.C No.2013 of 2008 2

learned Magistrate would not consider such application on merits,

in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do

the same. No special or specific direction appears to be

necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued

in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

[2003(1) KLT 339].

4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but

with the specific observation that if the petitioners appear before

the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient

prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned

Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits

and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.

Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for

the petitioners.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-