IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4399 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 14 OF 2000 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION CC.591/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER(S): 4TH ACCUSED: --------------------------- DORAIRAJ, AGED 60, S/O.SHANMUGHA ACHARI HOUSE NO.43/19, NEHRU STREET, SANKARAN KOVIL, THIRUNELVELI, TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, A/W. CRMC 4402 & CONNECTED CASE, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. Nos. 4399, 4402, 4403, 4404, 4405 & 4406 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner has been arrayed as the accused raising identical allegations against him in these criminal prosecutions for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 380 and 411 I.P.C. The petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage in all these cases. Final reports have been filed. Cognizance has already been taken. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far, though the prosecutions appear to have been initiated as early as in 2002. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. He was not aware of the proceedings initiated against him. Vexatiously he has been arrayed as an accused in the final reports. He is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail, but he apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. He prays that Crl.M.C. Nos. 4399/08 & connected cases 2 appropriate directions may be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to comply with the dictum in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 3. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in the decision referred above. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. The petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. Needless to say, if such application for bail is filed, 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. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the petitioner may be granted opportunity to claim discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. No permission of this Court is required to claim discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Every court must consider at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. whether charges are liable to be framed against the indictee in a prosecution for warrant offences taken cognizance of on the basis of a police report. Crl.M.C. Nos. 4399/08 & connected cases 3 5. The counsel further submits that if unnecessary insistence were made on the personal presence of the petitioner on all dates of posting before such plea of discharge is considered on merits and decision taken by the learned Magistrate, that would cause great hardship, inconvenience and loss to the petitioner, who is a permanent resident of Thirunelveli. It has been repeated several times by this Court that in a criminal prosecution unnecessary insistence on personal presence is not necessary unless such presence is necessary for making further progress in the proceedings in that case. The petitioner can apply for exemption from personal presence. I find no reason why such request should not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits. 6. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations. 7. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm Crl.M.C. Nos. 4399/08 & connected cases 4