High Court Kerala High Court

Jinu Joseph vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 17 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Jinu Joseph vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 17 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4901 of 2008()


1. JINU JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 35 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :17/12/2008

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C. No.4901 of 2008
                      -------------------------------------
            Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008

                                  ORDER

Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences

punishable under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act. According to the petitioner, all offences are bailable and the

case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the

First Class-II, Kochi.

2. The petitioner had entered appearance earlier. He

was enlarged on bail. But consequent to omission/failure on the

part of the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate,

coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. Such

processes are chasing the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends

imminent arrest.

3. 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

under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the

petitioner.

Crl.M.C. No.4901 of 2008 2

4. 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].

5. 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.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-