IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3807 of 2007()
1. RENJITH,S/O.APPU,PARUTHUR BROTHERS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. BIJUKUMAR,S/O.SIVASHANKARAN,
3. LALITHA,W/O.SHIVASHANKARAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJI MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :19/12/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3807 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of December 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for
offences punishable under Sections 324 and 447 read with 34
I.P.C. Altogether there were three accused persons. As against
the two other co-accused, the matter has been settled and has
been recorded and proceedings has been closed. The case
against the petitioner has been split up. The petitioner had not
entered appearance. The case against the petitioner is now
pending as C.C.No.634/2007 before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Attingal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was
not wilful or deliberate. Reckoning him as an absconding
accused, warrant of arrest has been issued by the learned
Magistrate. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the
learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But he apprehends
that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned
Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
Crl.M.C.No.3807/07 2
He, therefore, prays that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner
on bail when he appears and applies for bail.
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 find absolutely no reason to assume
that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application
for bail to be filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with
law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No
special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient
general directions have been issued in Alice George vs. Deputy
Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339].
4. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is
dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner
surrenders before the learned Magistrate and applies for 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, in accordance with law and
expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.
Crl.M.C.No.3807/07 3
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that he is employed abroad. He has only 40 days left in India.
He prays that there may be a direction to expeditiously dispose
of the case. The prayer of the petitioner for expeditious disposal
even when he has not surrendered and co-operated with the
court does appear to me to be strange. But all the same, I take
note of the plight of the petitioner. I need only mention that, the
petitioner, after appearing before the learned Magistrate can
apply to the learned Magistrate for expeditious disposal of the
case. The learned Magistrate must consider the said request
and pass appropriate orders.
Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.3807/07 4
Crl.M.C.No.3807/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007