Sreejith vs State Represented By The … on 23 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 358 of 2009()


1. SREEJITH, S/O.SIVARAJAN, AGED 31 YRS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE P.PROSECUTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :23/01/2009

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J
                       ------------------------------------
                       Crl.M.C. No.358 of 2009
                       -------------------------------------
              Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009

                                   ORDER

Petitioner faces indictment as the 5th accused in a

prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section

395 r/w 149 I.P.C. According to the petitioner he had

surrendered before the committal court and was enlarged on

bail. But later he could not appear before the Sessions Court as

compulsions of his employment compelled him to remain in

Mumbai. The case against him has been split up. The case

stands posted to 31.01.09 for scheduling trial. According to the

petitioner he is absolutely innocent. The absence earlier was not

wilful or deliberate. The petitioner is willing to surrender before

the learned Magistrate. 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 – on the date

of surrender itself.

2. 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

Crl.M.C. No.358 of 2009 2

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].

3. 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.

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

for the petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-