IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2251 of 2008()
1. RATHEESH, S/O. MOORTHI, VALIYAVEED
... Petitioner
2. LAKSHMI,W/O. DEVARAJ GOUDER,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. S.I.OF POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.K.ANAND
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :17/06/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.2251 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008
ORDER
The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for
offences, punishable, inter alia, under Sec.324 of the IPC. All
offences are bailable, it is submitted. The petitioners had
appeared before the learned Magistrate and were enlarged on
bail. The trial had commenced. At the stage of 313
examination, the petitioners started not appearing before the
learned Magistrate. Reckoning them as absconding accused,
coercive processes have been issued against the petitioners.
The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest in execution of
such processes.
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
Crl.M.C. No.2251 of 2008 -: 2 :-
before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The
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
the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate
Crl.M.C. No.2251 of 2008 -: 3 :-
must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and
expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge