IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3146 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.187/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED 1 AND 3 --------------------------- 1. V.SIVASANKARA PILLAI, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, PUTHUMANA VADAKKETHIL, PRASANTH BHAVAN, MALAYALAPPUZHA THAZHAM P.O. KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. PRASANTH S.NAIR, S/O.V.SIVASANKARA PILLAI, PRASANTH BHAVAN, MALAYALAPPUZHA THAZHAM P.O, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3146 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.380 and 471 read with Sec.34 IPC. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners had received summons to appear before court. On two occasions, they were promoted to appear through counsel. But on the third occasion, when a request was made again to excuse the absence of the petitioners, that petition was dismissed and non-bailable warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioners. Such processes are chasing the petitioners now. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest in execution of such processes. Crl.M.C. No. 3146 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. 3146 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. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners want to apply for exemption from personal appearance. If proper applications are made claiming that relief, needless to say, the learned Magistrate must consider the same on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. No further or better directions are necessary now. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ Crl.M.C. No. 3146 of 2008 -: 4 :-