IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2903 of 2008()
1. SUNNY, S/O.DEVASSY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
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. 2903 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for
offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.307 IPC.
Investigation is complete. Cognizance has already been taken
by the learned Magistrate. Committal proceedings are
pending. The petitioner has not been arrested and released
on bail so far, it is submitted. He has not appeared before the
learned Magistrate after initiation of the committal
proceedings. Reckoning the him 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, he is absolutely innocent.
His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The
Crl.M.C. No. 2903 of 2008 -: 2 :-
petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to surrender before the
learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner
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, in these circumstances, that
the petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to the
learned Magistrate to release him on bail when he appears
before the learned Magistrate.
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 the petitioner’s
application 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 petitioner surrenders before the learned
Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to
Crl.M.C. No. 2903 of 2008 -: 3 :-
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. Needless to say,
the application for bail will have to be considered in the light of
the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22).
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/