IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2114 of 2007()
1. THANKACHAN @ CHACKO
... Petitioner
2. LALIMMA CHACHO
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JOBY CYRIAC
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/07/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 2114 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioners are accused 1 and 3 in a prosecution for
offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 471 and 420 r/w. 511
I.P.C. They are spouses. They were not available for trial. The case
against the co-accused has been split up. They have been tried and
found not guilty and acquitted. Against the petitioners, warrants of
arrest were issued by the learned Magistrate. They once came to
this Court and secured Annex.A1 order. They subsequently appeared
before the learned Magistrate and were enlarged on bail. They have
again committed default and consequently they face the unenviable
predicament of warrants of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate
chasing them. They submit that they are innocent. Their absence was
not wilful. They are willing to appear and co-operate with the court
to expeditiously complete the proceedings. But they apprehend that
their applications for regular bail may not be considered by the
learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously. In these circumstances it is prayed that appropriate
directions may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the
petitioners on bail on the date of surrender itself.
Crl.M.C.No. 2114 of 2007
2
3. I do not find any circumstance justifying the issue of any
direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is certainly for the petitioners to
appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate
the circumstances under which they could not appear before the learned
Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would
not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioners when they
surrender before the learned Magistrate, 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 by this Court in the decision in Alice George v.
Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339).
4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten
to observe that if the petitioners appear 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 orders on
merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender
itself.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
Crl.M.C.No. 2114 of 2007
3
tm