High Court Kerala High Court

Sunil Das vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 3 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
Sunil Das vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 3 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2126 of 2007()


1. SUNIL DAS, S/O.NARAYANAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RAJU @ THOMAS, S/O.VARGHESE,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MARAYOOR FOREST

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.K.KARNIS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :03/07/2007

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J.

                           ----------------------

                        Crl.M.C.No.2126 of 2007

                       ----------------------------------------

                   Dated this the 3rd day of July 2007




                                  O R D E R

The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for

offences punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(III) & (IV) of the

Kerala Forest Act. The case was registered as early as in 2003.

Consequent to non-availability of the petitioners before the

learned Magistrate, warrants of arrest have been issued against

the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely

innocent. Their failure to appear before the learned Magistrate

was not wilful and was on account of reasons beyond their

control. They are prepared to surrender before the learned

Magistrate. But they apprehend that their application for bail

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

accordance with law and expeditiously. They, therefore, pray

that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to the

learned Magistrate to release the petitioners on bail when they

appear and apply for bail.

Crl.M.C.No.2126/07 2

2. 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.

3. I find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned

Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed

by the petitioners 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 Crl.M.C is dismissed but with the

specific observation that if the petitioners surrender 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, in

accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender

itself.

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

petitioner.






                                                       (R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr          // True Copy//          PA to Judge


Crl.M.C.No.2126/07    3


Crl.M.C.No.2126/07    4


       R.BASANT, J.





         CRL.M.CNo.





            ORDER





21ST DAY OF MAY2007