IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2527 of 2007()
1. JOTHI, S/O.VALAYIL SAHADEVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.HARIKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :07/08/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2527 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner is the fifth accused in a prosecution for
offences punishable inter alia under Section 380 I.P.C.
Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by
the police after due investigation. The petitioner entered
appearance. Charges were framed against him. Trial
commenced. It reached the stage of 313 statement. At that
stage, the petitioner started not appearing. Reckoning the
petitioner as an absconding accused, the trial against the other
accused proceeded. All the other co-accused who faced trial
have been found not guilty and acquitted, it is submitted.
According to the petitioner, he is also absolutely innocent. His
absence/failure to appear was on account of reasons beyond his
control. The petitioner was compelled to go abroad to eke out a
living. He has now come back. He is prepared to appear before
the learned Magistrate and co-operate for the expeditious
disposal of the case against him. A warrant of arrest issued by
Crl.M.C.No.2527/07 2
the learned Magistrate is chasing him. 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
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,
Crl.M.C.No.2527/07 3
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.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner airs an
apprehension that de novo trial may be held. I find no basis for
such apprehension at all. The interrupted trial against the
petitioner need continue only from the point of interruption. De
novo trial is certainly not necessary at all. I make this
clarification in view of the apprehension aired by the petitioner.
Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
Crl.M.C.No.2527/07 4
Crl.M.C.No.2527/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007