IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2904 of 2008()
1. SOJAN, AGED 35, S/O. THOMAS,
... Petitioner
2. EDISON ANTONY, AGED 40,
Vs
1. RANGE OFFICER, NEYYAR RANGE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.SABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :31/07/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2904 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008
ORDER
The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under
the Kerala Forest Act. The petitioners were arrested and
enlarged on bail at the crime stage, it is submitted.
Cognizance has already been taken. Calendar Case has been
registered against the petitioners. They have not appeared
before the learned Magistrate so far. Reckoning them as
absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued
against the petitioners. The petitioners apprehend imminent
arrest in execution of such processes.
2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely
innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate.
The petitioners, in these circumstances, want to surrender
before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The
Crl.M.C. No. 2904 of 2008 -: 2 :-
petitioners apprehend that their applications for regular bail may
not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in
accordance with law and expeditiously. It is, in these
circumstances, that the petitioners have come to this Court for a
direction to the learned Magistrate to release them on bail when
they appear before the learned Magistrate.
3. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned
Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the
circumstances under which they could not earlier appear before
the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the
learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioners’
applications for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law
and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to
be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general
directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision
reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police
(2003 (1) KLT 339).
4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the
observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned
Magistrate and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to
the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate
Crl.M.C. No. 2904 of 2008 -: 3 :-
must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and
expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/