P.J.Joseph @ Appachan vs State Of Kerala on 3 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
P.J.Joseph @ Appachan vs State Of Kerala on 3 September, 2008




Crl.MC.No. 3344 of 2008()

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       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


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

the petitioner.



Crl.M.C. No. 3344 of 2008 -: 4 :-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information