IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 204 of 2009() ------------------------------------ C.C.NO.665/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE I,COCHIN PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED/SURETIES: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. SABU JOSEPH, THEKKINEDATH HOUSE, KOONAMMAVU P.O., N.PARAVUR TALUK. 2. SASIDHARAN, S/O.PANAKKAL PADMANABHAN, KARIMPALAM, CHENDAMANGALAM P.O., N.PARUR TALUK. 3. SUDHEER, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL, THUNDATHUMKADAVU, VARAPPUZHA P.O., N.PARUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, VYPEEN. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.RAVINDRA BABU FOR R1 & R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.204 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January 2009 O R D E R The 1st petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offences of trespass and mischief. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The 1st petitioner is the accused. He was released on bail in the course of investigation on the basis of a bond executed by him before the police with petitioners 2 and 3 as sureties. That was at the crime stage. According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioner was not notified about the filing of the charge sheet or the pendency of the prosecution against him after cognizance. Therefore the 1st petitioner did not and could not appear before the learned Magistrate. 2. According to the petitioners, the learned Magistrate has now registered Crl.M.C.No.32/08 and notice has been issued to all the petitioners. Non-bailable warrant has been issued against the 1st petitioner also. The 1st petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of such non-bailable warrant. Petitioners 2 and 3 apprehend action on the basis of the proceedings initiated Crl.M.C.No.204/09 2 against them under Section 446 Cr.P.C that is Crl.M.C.No.32/08. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. If they had knowledge about cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate and the need of the presence of the 1st petitioner before court, they would have ensured that the 1st petitioner is present before court. They could not do the same as they were not informed of the need for the 1st petitioner before the learned Magistrate. Petitioners are willing to appear before the learned Magistrate; but they apprehend that the 1st petitioner's application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate and the cause which petitioners 2 and 3 want to show before the learned Magistrate under Section 446 Cr.P.C may not be considered by the learned Magistrate. 3. I find no merit in this contention at all. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate. The 1st petitioner must seek regular bail. When he seeks such regular bail, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself, if sufficient prior notice is given to Crl.M.C.No.204/09 3 the Prosecutor in charge of the case. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George vs.Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339]. I find no reason to issue any special or specific directions in favour of the 1st petitioner. 4. So far as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, they must appear before the learned Magistrate and show cause under Section 446 Cr.P.C. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider their reasons and pass appropriate orders under Section 446 Cr.P.C in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate must do the same. The petitioner's option to challenge any adverse order passed under Section 446 Cr.P.C shall remain unfettered. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7/2008 (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.204/09 4 Crl.M.C.No.204/09 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008