IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2939 of 2008()
1. EDWIN, S/O.FRANCIS, HOUSE NO.29/6494,
... Petitioner
2. JEROME, S/O.FRANCIS @ THULLI PANCHI,
3. YESU, S/O.PETER, PANTHAL VEETTIL
4. RAJU @ POODAN RAJU, S/O.JOHN, PANTHAL
5. SHAJI, S/O.ZACHARIA, BONA WEST
6. JOSE, S/O.THOMAS, KATTAKKALI PURAYIDAM,
7. STANSILAUS, S/O.ALLALIYAN, NIRMITHI
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/08/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.2939 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008
ORDER
Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences
punishable, inter alia, under Section 302 I.P.C. The petitioners
have not been arrested so far. Investigation is complete. Final
report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the
learned Magistrate. Committal proceedings has been registered.
The petitioners have not so far entered appearance. They have
not been enlarged on bail. Reckoning them as absconding
accused, coercive processes are being initiated against the
petitioners by the learned Magistrate. Such processes are
chasing the petitioners. The petitioners apprehend imminent
arrest.
2. According to the petitioners they are absolutely
innocent. Their absence was not wilful or deliberate. They were
not informed that they are accused in this case nor was any
summons or notice was ever issued from any court to them. The
petitioners are, in these circumstances, absolutely innocent. They
had applied for anticipatory bail. Though some of the accused,
Crl.M.C. No.2939 of 2008 2
who had applied for anticipatory bail in 2006, were granted
anticipatory bail, the petitioners’ application for anticipatory bail
stands dismissed by Annexure-A2 order. In these circumstances,
the petitioners now want to surrender before the learned
Magistrate and seek regular bail. But they apprehend that their
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 petitioners.
3. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned
Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the
circumstances under which they 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 petitioners appear before
Crl.M.C. No.2939 of 2008 3
the learned Magistrate and apply 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/-