IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 204 of 2009()
1. SABU JOSEPH, THEKKINEDATH HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. SASIDHARAN, S/O.PANAKKAL PADMANABHAN,
3. SUDHEER, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :15/01/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.204 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January 2009
O R D E R
The 1st petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the
offences of trespass and mischief. Cognizance has been taken on
the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due
investigation. The 1st petitioner is the accused. He was released
on bail in the course of investigation on the basis of a bond
executed by him before the police with petitioners 2 and 3 as
sureties. That was at the crime stage. According to the
petitioners, the 1st petitioner was not notified about the filing of
the charge sheet or the pendency of the prosecution against him
after cognizance. Therefore the 1st petitioner did not and could
not appear before the learned Magistrate.
2. According to the petitioners, the learned Magistrate
has now registered Crl.M.C.No.32/08 and notice has been issued
to all the petitioners. Non-bailable warrant has been issued
against the 1st petitioner also. The 1st petitioner apprehends
arrest in execution of such non-bailable warrant. Petitioners 2
and 3 apprehend action on the basis of the proceedings initiated
Crl.M.C.No.204/09 2
against them under Section 446 Cr.P.C that is Crl.M.C.No.32/08.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are absolutely innocent. If they had knowledge about
cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate and the need of the
presence of the 1st petitioner before court, they would have
ensured that the 1st petitioner is present before court. They
could not do the same as they were not informed of the need for
the 1st petitioner before the learned Magistrate. Petitioners are
willing to appear before the learned Magistrate; but they
apprehend that the 1st petitioner’s application for regular bail
may not be considered by the learned Magistrate and the cause
which petitioners 2 and 3 want to show before the learned
Magistrate under Section 446 Cr.P.C may not be considered by
the learned Magistrate.
3. I find no merit in this contention at all. It is for the
petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate. The 1st
petitioner must seek regular bail. When he seeks such regular
bail, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate
orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on
the date of surrender itself, if sufficient prior notice is given to
Crl.M.C.No.204/09 3
the Prosecutor in charge of the case. Sufficient general
directions have already been issued in Alice George vs.Deputy
Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339]. I find no reason
to issue any special or specific directions in favour of the 1st
petitioner.
4. So far as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, they must
appear before the learned Magistrate and show cause under
Section 446 Cr.P.C. I have no reason to assume that the learned
Magistrate would not consider their reasons and pass
appropriate orders under Section 446 Cr.P.C in accordance with
law. The learned Magistrate must do the same. The petitioner’s
option to challenge any adverse order passed under Section 446
Cr.P.C shall remain unfettered.
5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed
with the above observations.
Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner. 7/2008
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.204/09 4
Crl.M.C.No.204/09 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008