Chandu vs The State Of Kerala on 4 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Chandu vs The State Of Kerala on 4 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3394 of 2008()


1. CHANDU, S/O.KELU, CHULLIYODU HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.M.PRASANTH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :04/09/2008

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C. No.3394 of 2008
                      -------------------------------------
             Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008

                                  ORDER

Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence

punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act. Investigation is

complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has

been taken. Committal Proceedings has been registered. The

petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage or thereafter. He

has not entered appearance before the learned Magistrate so far.

2. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused,

coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by

the learned Magistrate. 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.3394 of 2008 2

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 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, in

accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender

itself, in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of

Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22].

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *