IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 314 of 2009 -------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 370/2006 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION) ......... PETITIONER/ 4TH ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- KRISHNA PRASAD, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. RAJA VIJAYKUMAR, NELAMEL IMPERIAL VEEDU, KAVUVILLA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.314 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 324 r/w 149 I.P.C. All offences alleged are bailable offences. The alleged incident took place on 21.12.2006 and the final report was filed on 04.01.07 showing all the accused persons including the petitioner as absconding. According to the petitioner, he was regularly attending the classes as a student of the Law College during the relevant period. His address was shown wrongly on the final report. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. But reckoning the petitioner as absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner was always available. He is a practicing lawyer. He is also undergoing the M.S.W course. The coercive processes issued by the learned Magistrate are chasing the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. He is willing to Crl.M.C. No.314 of 2009 2 surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. But he apprehends that his 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 petitioner. 3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which he 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 petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies 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, in Crl.M.C. No.314 of 2009 3 accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. 5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be a direction that the coercive processes issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till 31.01.09. On or before that date, the petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-