Nagendran vs Sub-Inspector Of Police on 31 January, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 236 of 2007()


1. NAGENDRAN, S/O.KUTTY,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SANTHOSH, VISHALA BHAVAN,
3. RAJESH, VISHALA BHAVAN, KOCHI.

                        Vs



1. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :31/01/2007

 O R D E R


                             R. BASANT, J.

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

                       CRL.M.C.NO.236  OF 2007

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

            Dated this the  31st day of January, 2007


                                 ORDER

The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under

Secs.323 and 447 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. Warrants of

arrest have been issued against the petitioners by the learned

Magistrate on account of their failure to appear before the

learned Magistrate on one date of posting. The petitioners

are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and

apply for bail. The petitioners apprehend that such

application to be filed by them may not be considered by the

learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously. They therefore pray that directions may be

issued under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to the learned Magistrate

to release the petitioners on bail when they surrender and

apply for bail.

2. 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

CRL.M.C.NO.236 OF 2007 -: 2 :-

that the learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioners’

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

reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

(2003 (1) KLT 339).

3. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the

specific 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 must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits

and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself, unless

compelling and exceptional reasons are there.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

HO

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge