High Court Kerala High Court

Vahid vs State Of Kerala on 1 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Vahid vs State Of Kerala on 1 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3304 of 2008()


1. VAHID, S/O. MUHAMED KASIM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :01/09/2008

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  Crl.M.C.No. 3304 of 2008
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008

                               O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A I.P.C. The petitioner

was not arrested at the crime stage. Investigation is complete.

Final report was filed. Cognizance has been taken as early as in

2003, as is evident by the number assigned to the case by the

JFMC, Kottarakkara, C.C. 1157 of 2003. The petitioner has not

entered appearance so far. The case against him has been

transferred to the list of long pending cases. Coercive processes

have been issued against him by the learned Magistrate. The

petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

2. According to the petitioner he is absolutely innocent.

His absence was not willful or deliberate, but on account of

reasons beyond his control. He is willing 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.

Crl.M.C.No. 3304 of 2008
2

3. It is certainly 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 application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he

surrenders before the learned Magistrate 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 by this Court in the decision in Alice George

v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339).

4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however

hasten to observe 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm