IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3389 of 2008()
1. ABDUL VAHID, S/O.SUBAIR KUNJU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/09/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3389 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner along with co-accused faces indictment in a
prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section
307 r/w 149 I.P.C. Final report was filed. Cognizance was
taken. Committal proceedings was registered before the learned
Magistrate. The co-accused who entered appearance were
committed to the Court of Session. They have already been
tried, found not guilty and acquitted, submits the learned
counsel for the petitioner. But the petitioner, the 7th accused,
was not available before the committal court. Hence the case
against him has been split up and transferred to the list of Long
Pending Cases. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding
accused, coercive processes have been issued against the
petitioner by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends
imminent arrest.
2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent.
His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. He is willing to
surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. But
he 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 therefore prayed that directions
Crl.M.C. No.3389 of 2008 2
under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the
petitioner.
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 such application on
merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court
must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be
necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been
issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of
Police [2003(1) KLT 339].
4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but
with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears 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, in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of
Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22].
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-