IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 17 of 2009()
1. MATHUKKUTTY @ MOHANAN, AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. KOCHUMON @ VILASAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.
Vs
1. THE CIRCLE INPSECTOR OF POLICE, CHITTAR.
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.V.SETHUNATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/01/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 17 of 2009
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009
ORDER
The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for
offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.8 of the Kerala
Abkari Act. Investigation is complete. Final report has
already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal
proceedings has been registered. The petitioners were not
arrested at the crime stage or later. Reckoning the petitioners
as absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued
against the petitioners by the learned Magistrate. Such
processes are chasing the petitioners now. The petitioners
apprehend imminent arrest in execution of such processes.
2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely
innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate.
The petitioners, in these circumstances, want to surrender
Crl.M.C. No. 17 of 2009 -: 2 :-
before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The
petitioners apprehend that their applications 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 petitioners have come to this Court for a
direction to the learned Magistrate to release them on bail when
they appear before the learned Magistrate.
3. It is 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 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
observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned
Magistrate and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to
the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate
Crl.M.C. No. 17 of 2009 -: 3 :-
must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and
expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. Needless to say,
the application for bail will have to be considered in the light of
the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22).
5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioners.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/