High Court Kerala High Court

Mohammed Shiyad vs The State Of Kerala on 29 November, 2007

Kerala High Court
Mohammed Shiyad vs The State Of Kerala on 29 November, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3579 of 2007()


1. MOHAMMED SHIYAD,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.PREMCHAND

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :29/11/2007

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C.No.3579 of 2007
                      -------------------------------------
             Dated this the 29th day of November, 2007

                                O R D E R

Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences

punishable, inter alia, under Section 452 I.P.C. That, it is

submitted, is the only non bailable offence involved. Final report

was filed and cognizance was taken as early as in 2003. The

petitioner, the 5th accused has not entered appearance so far.

Consequently coercive processes have been issued against him

by the learned Magistrate. He finds such processes chasing him

now.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence was not wilful

or deliberate. He is willing to surrender before the learned

Magistrate. But he 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 therefore prayed

that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour

of the petitioner.

Crl.M.C.No.3579 of 2007 2

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 such application 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 in Alice

George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)

KLT 339].

4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but

with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears before

the learned Magistrate and applies for 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the marriage of the petitioner is scheduled to take place on

02.12.2007. He prays that there may be a direction that the

Crl.M.C.No.3579 of 2007 3

warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner should not be

executed till then. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this

case, there shall be a direction that the warrant of arrest issued

against the petitioner shall not be executed till 05.12.07. On or

before that date, the petitioner shall surrender before the

learned Magistrate and seek regular bail.

6. The petitioner, who has not entered appearance so

far, has an interesting further request to make. He prays that

there may be a direction to dispose of his case expeditiously.

The petitioner must first appear before the learned Magistrate.

He must then seek early disposal of his case. In the facts and

circumstances of this case, I need only observe that the request

must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits and with

compassion.

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

for the petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-

Crl.M.C.No.3579 of 2007 4