Jaison V.O. vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3716 of 2007()


1. JAISON V.O., S/O. OUSEPH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :12/12/2007

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C.No.3716 of 2007
                      -------------------------------------
             Dated this the 12th day of December, 2007

                                O R D E R

Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence

punishable under Sections 304 A and 279 I.P.C. Cognizance was

taken in 2005. The petitioner, who is employed abroad, was not

able to appear before the learned Magistrate. Consequently

coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by the

learned Magistrate. The petitioner finds such processes chasing

him.

2. 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.3716 of 2007 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

and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-

Crl.M.C.No.3716 of 2007 3