IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2219 of 2007()
1. VARKEY, S/O OUSEPH,
... Petitioner
2. BIJU, S/O OUSEPH,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :11/07/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. NO. 2219 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2007
ORDER
The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under
Sec.55 of the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioners were not
arrested in the course of investigation. Investigation is
complete. Final report has already been filed also.
Cognizance has been taken and committal proceedings has
been registered before the learned Magistrate. The
petitioners, it is submitted, had received summons from the
learned Magistrate to appear in the committal proceedings.
The petitioners appeared through their counsel and applied for
condoning their absence. The learned Magistrate rejected the
applications and issued non-bailable warrants of arrest against
the petitioners. The petitioners now find warrants of arrest
issued by the learned Magistrate chasing them.
2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely
Crl.M.C. NO. 2219 OF 2007-: 2 :-
innocent. Their inability to appear earlier before the learned
Magistrate was not wilful or deliberate; but was on account of
reasons beyond their control. The petitioners, who had received
summons to appear before the court, are willing to appear before
the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But they
apprehend that their applications for bail may not be considered
by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously.
3. The learned Magistrate is bound to consider the
applications for bail on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously. The decisions in Sukumari v. State of Kerala
(2001 (1) KLT 22) and Alice George v. Deputy
Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339) make the
position crystal clear that the applications must be considered on
merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously by 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.
Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been
issued. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary.
Every court must do the same.
4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the
Crl.M.C. NO. 2219 OF 2007-: 3 :-
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
must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and
expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.
5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge