High Court Kerala High Court

Premji Pappachan vs State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Premji Pappachan vs State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3024 of 2008()


1.  PREMJI PAPPACHAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BIMAL K.NATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :11/08/2008

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT, J.
            -------------------------------------------------
                  Crl.M.C. No.3024 of 2008
            -------------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008

                               ORDER

The petitioner, who is the sole accused, faces indictment

in a prosecution under Sec.498A IPC. Cognizance has been

taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police

after investigation. The petitioner was not arrested in the

course of investigation. He has been shown as an absconding

accused. Coercive processes have been issued against the

petitioner by the learned Magistrate. Such processes are

chasing the petitioner now. The petitioner apprehends

imminent arrest.

2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent.

His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The

petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to surrender before

the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner

Crl.M.C. No.3024 of 2008 -: 2 :-

apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be

considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance

with law and expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, that

the petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to the

learned Magistrate to release him on bail when he appears

before the learned Magistrate.

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

Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the

circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before

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

learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioner’s

application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law

and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to

be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general

directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision

reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

(2003 (1) KLT 339).

4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the

observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned

Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to

Crl.M.C. No.3024 of 2008 -: 3 :-

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.

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/