High Court Kerala High Court

Aromal Rajan vs State Of Kerala Rep.By The Public on 19 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Aromal Rajan vs State Of Kerala Rep.By The Public on 19 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3134 of 2008()


1. AROMAL RAJAN,AGED 24,S/O.JINARAJAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :19/08/2008

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT, J.
            -------------------------------------------------
                  Crl.M.C. No. 3134 of 2008
            -------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008

                               ORDER

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for

offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.3 of the PDPP Act.

Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed.

Cognizance was taken as early as in 2003 as is evident from

the number assigned to the case – C.C.No.999/03. The

petitioner was shown as absconding. He was never arrested.

He has not appeared before the learned Magistrate. Reckoning

the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes

have been issued against the petitioner by the learned

Magistrate. Such processes are chasing the petitioner now.

The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in execution of

such processes.

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

Crl.M.C. No. 3134 of 2008 -: 2 :-

His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner,

in these circumstances, wants to surrender before the learned

Magistrate and seek regular bail. 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. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner

has come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate

to release him on bail when he appears before the learned

Magistrate.

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 consider the petitioner’s

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).

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

observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned

Crl.M.C. No. 3134 of 2008 -: 3 :-

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.

5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for

the petitioner.

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/