IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 211 of 2009()
1. SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
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.211 of 2009
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009
ORDER
Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences
punishable, inter alia, under Sections 326 and 308 r/w 34 I.P.C.
The petitioner was arrested and enlarged on bail. Final report
was filed. Cognizance was taken. Committal proceedings was
registered. The petitioner had appeared before the committal
court also and was enlarged on bail. At that juncture, the
petitioner secured employment and the compulsions of his
employment compelled him to remain in the country of his
employment. He was not hence able to return and participate in
the proceedings. The case against the petitioner has now been
split up. Coercive processes have been issued against the
petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in
execution of such processes.
2. According to the petitioner he is absolutely innocent.
His absence was not wilful or deliberate. He is suffering from
ailments. He is returning from his place of employment to India
to get the necessary treatment. He is expected to be in India
Crl.M.C. No.211 of 2009 2
shortly. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned
Magistrate and seek regular bail. But he 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 therefore prayed that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C
may be issued in favour of the petitioner.
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 such application on
merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court
must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be
necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been
issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of
Police [2003(1) KLT 339].
4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but
with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears 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
Crl.M.C. No.211 of 2009 3
accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender
itself.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has ailments. The petitioner can bring that fact to
the notice of the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate
shall pass appropriate orders in the bail application to be filed by
the petitioner taking note of all the relevant circumstances
including the ailments of the petitioner.
6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-