High Court Kerala High Court

Yahoo vs Station House Officer on 8 March, 2007

Kerala High Court
Yahoo vs Station House Officer on 8 March, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 631 of 2007()


1. YAHOO, S/O.MOIDU, NADUKKANDI HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ABDUL NAZAR, S/O.YAHOO,

                        Vs



1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :08/03/2007

 O R D E R


                              R. BASANT, J.

              -------------------------------------------------

                       CRL.M.C.NO. 631 OF 2007

              -------------------------------------------------

              Dated this the 8th day of March, 2007


                                   ORDER

The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in a prosecution,

inter alia, under Sec.324 read with Sec.149 of the IPC.

Altogether, there were six accused persons. Accused Nos.3, 4

and 5 have already been found not guilty and acquitted. The

case against the petitioners has been split up. It is now

pending as C.C.No.685/06 before the learned Magistrate. As

the petitioners were not available, warrants of arrest have

been issued by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners find

such warrants of arrest chasing them. The petitioners, in

these circumstances, want to surrender before the learned

Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioners 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, in these circumstances, that the

petitioners have come to this Court for a direction to the

learned Magistrate to release them on bail when they appear

before the learned Magistrate.

CRL.M.C.NO. 631OF 2007 -: 2 :-

2. 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 the petitioners’

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).

3. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the

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, unless compelling

and exceptional reasons are there.

Sd/-





                                                      (R. BASANT, JUDGE)

HO

Nan/

               //true copy//                P.S. To Judge