High Court Kerala High Court

Syam Raj R. vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 12 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Syam Raj R. vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 12 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4835 of 2008()


1. SYAM RAJ R.S/O.RAJENDRAN KARTHIKA'
                      ...  Petitioner
2. PRASANTH.P.S/O.V.PREMKUMAR,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.D.KISHORE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :12/12/2008

 O R D E R
                             R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                    Crl.M.C. No.4835 of 2008
                     -------------------------------------
            Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008

                                  ORDER

Petitioners along with co-accused face indictment in a

prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section

308 r/w 149 I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has

already been filed. Committal Proceedings has been registered.

The petitioners were not arrested at the crime stage or

thereafter. Reckoning the petitioners as absconding accused,

coercive processes have been issued against them. They

apprehend imminent arrest in execution of such processes.

2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely

innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. They

are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply

for bail. But they apprehend that their 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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the

petitioners.

Crl.M.C. No.4835 of 2008 2

3. 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. 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 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 appropriate orders on merits, in

accordance with law, expeditiously – on the date of surrender

itself and in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of

Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22].

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

for the petitioners.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-