IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 3344 of 2008() 1. P.J.JOSEPH @ APPACHAN, AGED 52 ... Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.AJITH MURALI For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT Dated :03/09/2008 O R D E R R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3344 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008 ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution as 10th
accused for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec. 55(a) of
the Kerala Abkari Act. Investigation is complete. Final report
has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken.
Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioner’s
name is not shown in the F.I.R. According to him, he is
blissfully unaware of the proceedings initiated against him.
But as the petitioner’s name is included as an accused in the
final report, the petitioner has not entered appearance so far.
Coercive process have been issued against the petitioner by
the learned Magistrate. Such processes are chasing the
petitioner now. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in
execution of such processes.
Crl.M.C. No. 3344 of 2008 -: 2 :-
2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent.
His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner,
in these circumstances, wants to surrender before the learned
Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner 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, in these circumstances, that the petitioner
has come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate
to release him on bail when he appears before the learned
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 the petitioner’s
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).
4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the
Crl.M.C. No. 3344 of 2008 -: 3 :-
observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned
Magistrate and seeks 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. 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
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Crl.M.C. No. 3344 of 2008 -: 4 :-