IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2374 of 2008()
1. PRADEEPKUMAR.K., AGED 36 YEARS
... Petitioner
2. ANIL KUMAR, P., AGED 41 YEARS
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.D.KISHORE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :24/06/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.2374 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008
ORDER
The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for
offence punishable under Sec.324 read with Sec.34 of the IPC.
The crime was registered in 1999. Final report has been filed.
Cognizance has been taken. The petitioners have not been
arrested so far. They have not appeared before the learned
Magistrate. In these circumstances, coercive processes have
been issued against the petitioners by the learned Magistrate.
Such coercive processes chasing the petitioners now. They
apprehend imminent arrest.
2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely
innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate.
The petitioners, in these circumstances, want to surrender
before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The
Crl.M.C. No.2374 of 2008 -: 2 :-
petitioners apprehend that their applications 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 petitioners have come to this Court for a
direction to the learned Magistrate to release them on bail when
they appear before the learned Magistrate.
3. 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 that the
learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioners’
applications 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
observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned
Magistrate and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to
Crl.M.C. No.2374 of 2008 -: 3 :-
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.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/