High Court Kerala High Court

Aboobacker Vadakkengara vs The State Of Kerala on 11 January, 2007

Kerala High Court
Aboobacker Vadakkengara vs The State Of Kerala on 11 January, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 87 of 2007()


1. ABOOBACKER VADAKKENGARA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :11/01/2007

 O R D E R


                              R. BASANT, J.

              -------------------------------------------------

                       CRL.M.C.NO. 87 OF  2007

              -------------------------------------------------

            Dated this the 11th day of January, 2007


                                  ORDER

The petitioner is the 2nd accused in a prosecution, inter

alia, under Sec.324 read with Sec.149 of the IPC. Some of the

co-accused have already been tried, found not guilty and

acquitted. The petitioner was not available for trial. The case

against him has been split up. The petitioner now wants to

appear before the learned Magistrate. He apprehends that his

application for regular bail may not be considered by the

learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously. He has hence come to this Court with a prayer

that directions may be issued under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to

the learned Magistrate to release him on bail when he

surrenders and applies for bail.

2. 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 the petitioner’s

CRL.M.C.NO. 87 OF 2007 -: 2 :-

application 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).

3. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the

observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned

Magistrate and seeks 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, unless compelling

and exceptional reasons are there.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge