IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4551 of 2008() ------------------------- CP.230/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOTTARAKKARA CRIME NO.208/07 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.5 AND 14 --------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.PARAMESHWARAN, PLAVILA POIKATHADATHIL VEEDU, TACHONAM, KUMIL VILLAGE, KUMIL. 2. LAL, S/O.VASUDEVAN, LAL BHAVAN, PULIPPARA MURI, PANGOD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, REP. THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4551 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008 ORDER The petitioners along with others face indictment as the 5th and 14th accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.308 read with Sec.149 IPC. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioners have not been arrested at the crime stage; nor have they appeared before the learned Magistrate. Reckoning them as absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest in execution of such processes. 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 Crl.M.C. No. 4551 of 2008 -: 2 :- 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 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 Crl.M.C. No. 4551 of 2008 -: 3 :- must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. Needless to say, the application for bail will have to be considered in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22). 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/