IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 547 of 2009()
1. K.P. ASHRAF,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :05/02/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 547 of 2009
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment as the 2nd accused in a
prosecution for the offence punishable under Sec.379 read
with Sec.34 IPC. Cognizance was taken long back as can be
seen from the number assigned to the case i.e., C.C.No.355/02.
The co-accused has already been tried found not guilty and
acquitted, it is submitted. The petitioner was not available for
trial. The case against the petitioner has been transferred to
the list of Long Pending Cases. According to the petitioner,
compulsions of his employment obliged him to go abroad and it
was hence that he was not able to appear before the learned
Magistrate. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding
accused, coercive processes have been issued against the
petitioner by the learned Magistrate. Such processes are
Crl.M.C. No. 547 of 2009 -: 2 :-
chasing the petitioner now. The petitioner apprehends imminent
arrest in execution of such processes.
2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent.
His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner,
in these circumstances, wants to surrender before the learned
Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner 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, in these circumstances, that the petitioner
has come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate
to release him on bail when he appears before the learned
Magistrate.
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 the petitioner’s
application 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
Crl.M.C. No. 547 of 2009 -: 3 :-
(2003 (1) KLT 339).
4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the
observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned
Magistrate and seeks 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.
5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/