High Court Kerala High Court

V.Subramanian vs State Of Kerala on 19 December, 2007

Kerala High Court
V.Subramanian vs State Of Kerala on 19 December, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 7985 of 2007()



1. V.SUBRAMANIAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :19/12/2007

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT, J.
            -------------------------------------------------
                     B.A. No.7985 OF 2007
            -------------------------------------------------
        Dated this the 19th day of December, 2007

                               ORDER

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for

offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.420 of the IPC.

Cognizance has already been taken by the learned Magistrate.

The petitioner has not entered appearance. A warrant of

arrest is issued by the learned Magistrate to procure the

presence of the petitioner. The petitioner finds such warrant

of arrest chasing him.

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

His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. He is willing

to appear before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner

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

B.A. No.7985 OF 2007 -: 2 :-

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 bail application 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

B.A. No.7985 OF 2007 -: 3 :-

and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.

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

the petitioner.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge