Varghese Alias Georgekutty vs State Of Kerala Rep. By The on 19 December, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3788 of 2007()


1. VARGHESE ALIAS GEORGEKUTTY,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR,

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SANTOSH KUMAR (PERUNAD)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :19/12/2007

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C.No.3788 of 2007
                      -------------------------------------
             Dated this the 19th day of December, 2007

                                O R D E R

Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences

punishable, inter alia, under Sections 380 and 451 I.P.C.

Cognizance has been taken as early as in 2000 as can be seen

from the number assigned to the case – C.C.No.232 of 2000. The

petitioners had appeared before the learned Magistrate. They

were enlarged on bail. But subsequently they have started

absconding and coercive processes have been issued against the

petitioners by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners find such

processes chasing them.

2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely

innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. They

are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply

for bail. But they apprehend that their 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

petitioners.

Crl.M.C.No.3788 of 2007 2

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 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 petitioners appear before

the learned Magistrate and apply 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

and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-

Crl.M.C.No.3788 of 2007 3