Shantha vs State Of Kerala on 9 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 124 of 2009()


1. SHANTHA, AGED 66 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SMT.T.SUDHAMANI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :09/01/2009

 O R D E R
                             R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C. No.124 of 2009
                     -------------------------------------
              Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009

                                  ORDER

Petitioner, a woman, faces indictment in a prosecution for

offences punishable under Kerala Abkari Act. Investigation is

complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has

been taken. Committal Proceedings has been registered. The

petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage or thereafter.

Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive

processes have been issued against the petitioner. The

petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such

processes.

2. According to the petitioner, she is absolutely innocent.

Her absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. She is willing to

surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. But

she apprehends that her 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.

Crl.M.C. No.124 of 2009 2

3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned

Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the

circumstances under which she 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

accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender

itself, in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of

Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22].

5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel

for the petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-