IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2277 of 2008() ------------------------- (CRIME NO.179/2006 OF MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONERS: ACCUSED 1 TO 4 -------------------------------------------- 1. SAJEEVAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN, MATHIPPURAM PUTHEN VEEDU, MULLOOR DESOM, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SURESH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN NAIR, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, RASALPURAM, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE. 3. JEEVAN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI, THEMBAMUTTAM ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, ATHIYANNOOR DESOM. 4. ARUN PRASANTH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.THANKARAJAN, BABY LAND, THENNIKUZHI, BALARAMAPURAM, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2277 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sec.308 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Committal proceedings has been registered, it is submitted. Petitioners 1 and 2 had entered appearance before the learned Magistrate and were enlarged on bail; petitioners 3 and 4 having not appeared before the learned Magistrate; nor had they been arrested so far. Petitioners 1 and 2 have thereafter not appeared before the learned Magistrate. Reckoning all the petitioners as absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioners. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest in execution of such processes. Crl.M.C. No. 2277 of 2008 -: 2 :- 2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. 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). 4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the Crl.M.C. No. 2277 of 2008 -: 3 :- 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 applications 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/