High Court Kerala High Court

Abdu vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2007

Kerala High Court
Abdu vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3537 of 2007()


1. ABDU, S/O. HAMZA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DILIP MOHAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :26/11/2007

 O R D E R
                                R.BASANT, J
                        ------------------------------------
                       Crl.M.C.No.3537 of 2007
                        -------------------------------------
             Dated this the 26th day of November, 2007

                                  O R D E R

Petitioner is the 6th accused and he faces indictment for offence

punishable, inter alia, under Section 326 r/w 149 I.P.C. All the other

accused persons have been tried, found not guilty and acquitted. The

petitioner was not available for trial and the case against him is now

split up and pending before the learned Magistrate.

2. As the petitioner has not appeared before the Magistrate,

warrant of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate is chasing the

petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His

absence was not wilful or deliberate. He is willing to surrender before

the learned Magistrate and seek regular 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.

3. 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

Crl.M.C.No.3537 of 2007 2

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.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-

Crl.M.C.No.3537 of 2007 3