IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2768 of 2008()
1. T.ASOKAN, THACHAMBALATH, REENA NIVAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE REP;BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :23/07/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.Nos.2768, 2771 and 2781 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of July 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner is the sole accused in three different
prosecutions all pending before the same court. In two
prosecutions offences alleged are bailable. In one prosecution a
non-bailable offence has also been alleged against the petitioner.
The petitioner had entered appearance before the learned
Magistrate. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2004 in two cases
and in 2006 in another. When the case was posted for trial, the
petitioner did not appear before the learned Magistrate. His
counsel was also not present. Application was filed through
sureties to condone the absence of the petitioner and post the case
to another date. The learned Magistrate did not accept the said
request. Non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the
petitioner. Such coercive processes are chasing the petitioner now.
The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such
processes.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful
or deliberate. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the
learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But he apprehends that
his application for bail may not be considered by the learned
Crl.M.C.No.2768/08 & conn.cases 2
Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
He, therefore, prays that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may
be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail
when he appears and applies for bail.
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 find absolutely no reason to assume that the
learned Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be
filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific
directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general directions
have been issued in Alice George vs. Deputy Superintendent of
Police [2003(1)KLT 339].
4. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is
dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner
surrenders before the learned Magistrate and applies 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of
surrender itself.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.2768/08 & conn.cases 3
Crl.M.C.No.2768/08 & conn.cases 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008