IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3333 of 2008()
1. PRASHANTH @ PRASHANTHKUMAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :03/09/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 3333 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008
ORDER
The petitioners are accused 2 to 4 and they, along with
the 1st accused, face indictment in a prosecution for offences
punishable, inter alia, under Secs.353 and 332 IPC. The
petitioners were not arrested as accused and were blissfully
ignorant of the proceedings pending against them, it is
submitted. Reckoning the petitioners as absconding accused,
coercive processes have been issued against the petitioners by
the learned Magistrate. Such processes are chasing the
petitioners now. The petitioners 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.
The petitioners, in these circumstances, want to surrender
Crl.M.C. No. 3333 of 2008 -: 2 :-
before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The
petitioners apprehend that their applications 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 the petitioners have come to this Court for a
direction to the learned Magistrate to release them on bail when
they appear before the learned Magistrate.
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 the petitioners’
applications 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 Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the
observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned
Magistrate and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to
the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate
Crl.M.C. No. 3333 of 2008 -: 3 :-
must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and
expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.
Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioners.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/