Binu vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2539 of 2008()



1. BINU
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :08/07/2008

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  Crl.M.C.No. 2539 of 2008
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                Dated this the 8th day of July, 2008

                               O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for

offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 308 I.P.C.

Investigation is complete. Cognizance has been taken. The

petitioner has not received any notice, memo or process from the

Court. But he understands that reckoning him as an absconding

accused, coercive processes have been issued against him by

the learned Magistrate in the committal proceedings. The

petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

2. According to the petitioner he is absolutely innocent.

His absence was not willful or deliberate, but on account of

reasons beyond his control. He is willing to surrender before the

learned Magistrate, but he apprehends that his application for

bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits,

in accordance with law and expeditiously.

3. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the

learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the

Crl.M.C.No. 2539 of 2008
2

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 application for bail to be filed by the

petitioner when he surrenders before the learned Magistrate 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 by this Court in

the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT

339).

4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however

hasten to observe 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm