High Court Kerala High Court

M.Kabeer vs State on 10 April, 2007

Kerala High Court
M.Kabeer vs State on 10 April, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1135 of 2007()



1. M.KABEER
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :10/04/2007

 O R D E R






                             R. BASANT, J.

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

                    CRL.M.C.NO. 1135 OF 2007

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

              Dated this the 10th day of April, 2007



                                 ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under

Secs.406 and 420 of the IPC. Cognizance has been taken on

the basis of a private complaint filed by the complainant. The

petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrate so

far. The learned Magistrate has issued coercive process to

procure the presence of the petitioner. In these

circumstances, the petitioner has come to this Court with a

prayer that the proceedings against him may be quashed.

Alternatively, it is prayed that the learned Magistrate may be

directed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to release the petitioner

on bail on the date of his surrender itself.

2. Though there is a contention that the prosecution

has liable to be quashed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., no

serious attempt is made to press home that contention. I am

CRL.M.C.NO. 1135 OF 2007 -: 2 :-

satisfied that it is not necessary to quash the proceedings by

invoking the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. Needless to

say, the petitioner shall be at liberty to claim discharge under

Sec.245(1) or 245(2) of the Cr.P.C. as the case may be.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate.

But 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.

4. 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

CRL.M.C.NO. 1135 OF 2007 -: 3 :-

reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

(2003 (1) KLT 339).

5. 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, unless compelling

and exceptional reasons are there.

6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for

the petitioner.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge