IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4526 of 2008() ------------------------- CP.85/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, DEVICOLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 16 TO 20 ---------------------- 1. SUBBARIAJ, S/O. MADASWAMY, H.NO.MGP III/ 370, KAPPI STORE, TALAYAR ESTATE, KDH VILLAGE. 2. VINAYAK, S/O. SEVAYYAMMUTHU, H.NO.MGP III/491,7TH ROOM LINE, TALAYAR ESTAT, KDH VILLAGE. 3. SASI S/O. KARUPPUSWAMY, HNO MGP III/588 12TH ROOM LINE PAMBANMALA DIVISON, TALAYAR ESTATE, KDH VILLAGE. 4. RAMESH S/O.PARAMASIVAN, H NO.MGP III/541 1OTH ROOM LINE, PAMBANMALA DIVISON, TALAYAR ESTATE, KDH VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4526 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008 ORDER The petitioners are accused 16 to 20 and they face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.307 read with Sec.149 IPC. The petitioners were not arrested in the course of investigation. According to them, they were not even named as accused in the FIR. They had no information whatsoever of the police choosing to array them as accused in this crime. After the filing of the final report, cognizance has been taken and committal proceedings has been registered. Reckoning the petitioners as absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioners. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest in execution of such processes. 2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely Crl.M.C. No. 4526 of 2008 -: 2 :- innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. No notice, summons or process of the court had ever been served on them; nor were they aware of the existence of such proceedings. The petitioners, in these circumstances, want to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioners apprehend that their applications 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. 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 the petitioners' applications 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). Crl.M.C. No. 4526 of 2008 -: 3 :- 4. 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. 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/