IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2971 of 2008()
1. M.S. BALA KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. VASANTHA KUMAR S.V., AGED 47 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.ANIL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :06/08/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 2971 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioners face indictment as accused 1 and 2 in a
prosecution under Section 392 r/w. 34 I.P.C. They were arrested
and were enlarged on bail at the crime stage. Later final report
has been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Though the calender
case was registered in 2001 the petitioners have not so far entered
appearance. The learned Magistrate had initially issued a
bailable warrant and subsequently non-bailable warrant has been
issued against the petitioners. The petitioners find such processes
issued by the learned Magistrate chasing them.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
issue of such coercive processes against the petitioners is totally
unjustified. They were on bail. Thereafter they were not served.
Without and before service is effected on them, bailable warrant
initially and non-bailable warrant subsequently issued against
the petitioners is not justified. They are willing to surrender
Crl.M.C.No. 2971 of 2008
2
before the learned Magistrate, but he apprehend that their applications
for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in
accordance with law and expeditiously. It is in these circumstances
prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to release the
petitioners on bail on the date of surrender itself.
3. It is certainly for the petitioners to appear before the learned
Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances
under which they could not earlier appear before the learned
Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate
would not consider the applications for bail to be filed by the
petitioners when they surrender before the learned Magistrate on
merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must
do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary.
Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this Court in
the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT
339).
4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however
hasten to observe that if the petitioners appear before the learned
Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to
Crl.M.C.No. 2971 of 2008
3
the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must
proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.
5. The order sheet has been produced. In the peculiar facts and
circumstances, there shall be a direction that the warrant of arrest
issued against the petitioners shall not be executed till 20.8.2008. On
or before that date the petitioners shall appear before the learned
Magistrate and seek regular bail. The learned counsel for the
petitioners prays that there may be a direction that the same sureties
who have offered bail at the earlier stage may be accepted now also.
That discretion has to be exercised by the learned Magistrate. The
petitioners can raise those contentions before the learned Magistrate. I
have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate will not consider
such request on merits and in accordance with law.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm