IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2933 of 2008() ------------------------- C.P. 149/05 OF J.F.C.M. COURT, THIRUVALLA PETITIONERS: ACCUSED ------------------- 1. ROY, S/O.JOSEPH, MANNIL HOUSE, MUNDIAPPALLI MURI, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE. 2. FRANCIS @ BIJU, S/O.JOSEPH, PALLICKAL HOUSE, MUNDIAPALLI MURI, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2933 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment as accused Nos. 15 and 17 in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 307 r/w.149 I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioners had entered appearance and were enlarged on bail. But on 29.2.2008 when the case was posted for committal, the petitioners did not/could not appear personally as they had to attend the funeral of a relative. It is submitted that the counsel for the petitioners promptly filed an application seeking permission and explaining the absence of the petitioners. Without considering that application, the learned Magistrate has cancelled the bail and issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioners. Such processes are chasing the petitioners now. Crl.M.C.No. 2933 of 2008 2 2. According to the petitioners they are absolutely innocent. Their absence was not willful or deliberate, but on account of reasons beyond their control. They are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate, but he apprehend that their applications for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is in these circumstances prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to release the petitioners on bail on the date of surrender itself. 3. It is certainly 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 applications for bail to be filed by the petitioners when they surrender before the learned Magistrate 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 by this Court in Crl.M.C.No. 2933 of 2008 3 the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. Needless to say their application for bail may be considered in the light of the dictum in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22) also. 5. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm