IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3517 of 2011() ------------------------- LP.120/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,CHALAKUDY .................... (CRIME NO.128/2000 OF KORATTY POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DISTRICT) .... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 AND 3: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUBAIR P.M., S/O.MUSTHAFA, POTHOKADDAY HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. 2. NOUSHAD K.M., S/O.MOIDEEN, KANJIRAKKATTUKUDIYIL, PEZHAYKAPILLY P.O., THATHAPARAMBU, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MARTIN ROY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3517 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.128/2000 of Koratty Police Station. Since the accused were reported to be absconding, after complying the procedure prescribed, the case was transferred to the register of long pending cases and it is now pending before J.F.C.M., Chalakudy as L.P.No.120/2005. The offence alleged against them is dacoity punishable under Sec.395 IPC. It is a sessions offence. The incident took place 11 years back. The accused did not surrender before any court so far. 2. The prayer in this petition is to issue a direction to the learned Magistrate to grant bail when the petitioners surrender before the Magistrate. No order is required for the accused to surrender before the learned Magistrate. Crl.M.C. No.3517 of 2011 -: 2 :- The request made is that the Magistrate should be directed to grant bail to the petitioner. 3. It was held by the Division Bench of this Court in Martin v. State of Kerala reported in [2004 (2) KLT 1037] : “From the facts of each case, High Court is empowered to give directions for disposal of a particular case and some guidelines can be prescribed including laying down of time limits or chalking out a time limit to follow. But an outer limit cannot be prescribed as a general direction. It can be prescribed only by law There may be circumstances where court may not be able to dispose of a bail application within three days, due to the facts of certain cases, absence of Public Prosecutor etc.” It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Narain Agrawal v. Shasi Agrawal and others [2009 (6) SCC 385]: “Similarly, the High Court should not have, for all intent and purport, issued the direction for grant of exemption from personal appearance. Such a matter undoubtedly shall be left for the consideration before the learned Magistrate. We are sure that the Magistrate would exercise his jurisdiction in a fair and judicious manner.” Crl.M.C. No.3517 of 2011 -: 3 :- Though that observation was made while dealing with the provision contained in Section 205 of the Code, it is apposite here since this Court would not be justified in interfering with the judicial discretion to be exercised by the learned Magistrate. 4. No such direction can be issued in the light of what has been stated above. If the accused surrenders before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate will dispose of their applications as expeditiously as possible, but taking note of the fact that it is a sessions case and also other circumstances pertaining to the case that the accused has been absconding for several years. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt