Thodergol Soman vs State Of Kerala on 9 October, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3111 of 2007()


1. THODERGOL SOMAN, S/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :09/10/2007

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J
                       ------------------------------------
                      Crl.M.C.No.3111 of 2007
                       -------------------------------------
              Dated this the 9th day of October, 2007

                                 O R D E R

The petitioner along with co-accused faced indictment for

offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 452 and 324 I.P.C. The

co-accused have been found not guilty and acquitted in a trial held

against them. As the petitioner was not available, he was not

proceeded again. The case against him has been split up. Coercive

processes have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner, in

these circumstances, has come before this Court for issue of directions

under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

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 co-operate with the court for the

expeditious disposal of the case against him. But 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. Therefore it is prayed that appropriate directions under

Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in his favour.

3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned

Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances

Crl.M.C.No.3111 of 2007 2

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 and expeditiously –

on the date of surrender itself.

5. Needles to say that it shall be open to the petitioner to

urge before the court below that the matter has been settled and that

permission may be given to compound the compoundable offence.

The petitioner can also claim discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C

relying on all the grounds which are available to him.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-

Crl.M.C.No.3111 of 2007 3