High Court Kerala High Court

Fakarudheen vs State Of Kerala on 26 February, 2007

Kerala High Court
Fakarudheen vs State Of Kerala on 26 February, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 487 of 2007()


1. FAKARUDHEEN, AGED 28 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :26/02/2007

 O R D E R
                                    R.BASANT, J

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

                            Crl.M.C.No.487 of 2007

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

                 Dated this the 26th  day of February, 2007


                                        ORDER

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution, inter alia, under

Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C. The petitioner was granted bail at the

crime stage. According to the petitioner, he had no information about

the cognizance of the offence by the learned Magistrate later. He now

finds himself in an unenviable predicament of coercive processes under

Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C as also a non bailable warrant issued by the

learned Magistrate chasing him.

2. The petitioner is prepared to appear before the learned

Magistrate and seek bail in the regular and ordinary course. But he

apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the

learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously. He has come to this Court with a prayer that powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to issue direction to the

learned Magistrate to grant bail to the petitioner.

3. I find absolutely no merit in the prayer. 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

Crl.M.C.No.487 of 2007 2

that the learned Magistrate would not consider such application for bail

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 and expeditiously –

on the date of surrender itself, unless there are exceptional and

compelling reasons.

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

the petitioner today itself.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-