IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2239 of 2008()
1. PIOUS, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.VICTORIA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.D.ROBIN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :16/06/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2239 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the
offence punishable under Sec.326 of the IPC. The case is at
the trial stage. Cognizance was taken in the year 2004. The
case stood posted to 4/7/08. The principal witnesses, including
the injured witness, have already been examined. The dispute
is settled between the parties and the de facto complainant has
reported that fact to the court in his evidence. The said case
was posted to 9/6/08. On account of a mistake in the noting
down of the date, the petitioner could not appear on 9/6/08.
The case has hence been posted to 4/7/08. The learned
Magistrate has chosen to issue a non-bailable warrant of arrest
to procure the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner
apprehends imminent arrest.
Crl.M.C. No. 2239 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
Magistrate.
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. 2239 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.
5. 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 4/7/08 on or
before which day the petitioner must surrender before the
learned Magistrate and seek regular bail.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge