IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4534 of 2008()
1. JOBY, S/O.THOMAS, OLIKKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. THANKAKUTTAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN,
3. MADHU, S/O.P.N.MOHANDAS, SREESHYLAM
4. VINOD, S/O.HARIKUMAR,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :25/11/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 4534 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008
ORDER
The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for
offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.308 read with Sec.34
IPC. The case is pending before the Additional Sessions Court
(Ad hoc-II), Ernakulam. The case was listed for trial to
20/11/08. The petitioners were not present. It is submitted
that an application under Sec.317 Cr.P.C. was filed; but the
same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Coercive
processes have been issued against the petitioners. The
petitioners find such processes chasing them.
2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely
innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate.
It was hoped that the matter would be settled. But it dawned
on the petitioners that the settlement was not going to be
Crl.M.C. No. 4534 of 2008 -: 2 :-
reported to court on the date of posting. They had fallen sick
also. It was, in these circumstances, that they happened to be
absent and the application was filed. The petitioners, in these
circumstances, want to surrender before the learned Judge and
seek regular bail. The petitioners apprehend that their
applications for regular bail may not be considered by the
learned Judge on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners
have come to this Court for a direction to the learned Judge to
release them on bail when they appear before the learned
Magistrate.
3. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned
Judge and explain to the learned Judge the circumstances under
which they could not earlier appear before the learned Judge. I
have no reason to assume that the learned Judge would not
consider the petitioners’ applications for regular bail on merits,
in accordance with law and expeditiously. No special or
specific directions appear to be necessary. Every court must do
the same. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have
already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v.
Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339).
4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the
Crl.M.C. No. 4534 of 2008 -: 3 :-
observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned
Judge and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the
Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Judge must
proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously –
on the date of surrender itself.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge