High Court Kerala High Court

Murali vs State Of Kerala on 13 September, 2007

Kerala High Court
Murali vs State Of Kerala on 13 September, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2882 of 2007()


1. MURALI,S/O. RAMAN,AGED 32 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI. JOHNSON P.JOHN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :13/09/2007

 O R D E R
                           R.BASANT, J.
                        ----------------------
                     Crl.M.C.No.2882 of 2007
                    ----------------------------------------
            Dated this the 13th day of September 2007


                               O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under the

Dowry prohibition Act. Cognizance has been taken. Case has

been registered. The petitioner was once enlarged on bail.

Consequent to his non-appearance, coercive processes have

been initiated against the petitioner. A warrant of arrest issued

by the learned Magistrate is chasing him.

2. According to the petitioner, he is innocent. His

absence earlier was not wilful. The petitioner is willing to

surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail.

But he apprehends that his application for bail may not be

considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance

with law and expeditiously. He, therefore, prays that directions

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to the learned

Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail when he appears and

applies for bail.

3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned

Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate, the

Crl.M.C.No.2882/07 2

circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before

the learned Magistrate. I find absolutely no reason to assume

that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application

for bail to be filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with

law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No

special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient

general directions have been issued in Alice George vs. Deputy

Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339].

4. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is

dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner

surrenders 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, in accordance with law and

expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.

Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr

Crl.M.C.No.2882/07 3

Crl.M.C.No.2882/07 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007