IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2507 of 2008()
1. RAMACHANDRAN,S/O.CHEERALAN, EDATHARAYIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/07/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.2507 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under
the Kerala Abkari Act. Investigation is complete. Final report
has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken.
Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioner
has not been arrested at any stage so far. The petitioner has
not appeared before the learned Magistrate and, in these
circumstances, reckoning him as an absconding accused,
coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by
the learned Magistrate.
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.2507 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, 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
the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate
must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and
Crl.M.C. No.2507 of 2008 -: 3 :-
expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. Needless to say,
the application for bail will have to be considered in the light of
the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22).
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/