High Court Kerala High Court

Santosh K.K vs State Of Kerala on 2 March, 2007

Kerala High Court
Santosh K.K vs State Of Kerala on 2 March, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 571 of 2007()


1. SANTOSH K.K,AGED 41 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. S.I. OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.HARIHARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :02/03/2007

 O R D E R
                                   R.BASANT, J

                      ------------------------------------

                           Crl.M.C.No.571 of 2007

                      -------------------------------------

                    Dated this the 2nd  day of March, 2007


                                      ORDER

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution, inter alia, under

Section 304 A I.P.C. The case was registered as early as in 2003. The

petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrate. According

to him, he was blissfully unaware of the proceedings which have been

initiated against him. No notice or summons was ever served on him.

The petitioner now finds himself in the unenviable predicament of a

warrant of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate chasing him.

2. The petitioner is prepared to surrender before the learned

Magistrate. But he apprehends that his application for bail may not be

considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law

and expeditiously. He has therefore come to this Court with a prayer

that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued to the learned

Magistrate to release him on bail on the date of his appearance itself.

3. I find no reason to invoke the powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C. 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

Crl.M.C.No.571 of 2007 2

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 and expeditiously –

on the date of surrender itself, unless exceptional and compelling

reasons are there.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-