High Court Kerala High Court

Joby @ Varghese vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 20 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
Joby @ Varghese vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 20 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2331 of 2007()


1. JOBY @ VARGHESE, S/O.KUNJAPPAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASBA POLICE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :20/07/2007

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J.

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

                         Crl.M.C.No.2331 of 2007

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

                  Dated this the 20th day of July 2007




                                   O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under

Sections 324 and 326 I.P.C. The petitioner was on bail during

the crime stage. After cognizance was taken, the petitioner did

not appear. A warrant of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate

is chasing the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner is innocent. His failure to appear

before the learned Magistrate was not wilful and was due to

reasons beyond his control. The petitioner now wants 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.

He, therefore, prays that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner

on bail when he appears and applies for bail.

2. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned

Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate, the

Crl.M.C.No.2331/07 2

circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before

the learned Magistrate.

3. I find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned

Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed

by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or

specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general

directions have been issued in Alice George vs. Deputy

Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339].

4. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is

dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner

surrenders 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.






                                                    (R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr


                          // True Copy//          PA to Judge


Crl.M.C.No.2331/07    3


Crl.M.C.No.2331/07    4


       R.BASANT, J.





         CRL.M.CNo.





            ORDER





21ST DAY OF MAY2007