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. 211 of 2009() ------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.358 OF 2004 OF PARAVUR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, SON OF PARAMESWARAN, RESIDING AT PUTHUVEETTIL, VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, POOTHAKKULAM CHERRY, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVUR POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A.SALIM 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.211 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 326 and 308 r/w 34 I.P.C. The petitioner was arrested and enlarged on bail. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken. Committal proceedings was registered. The petitioner had appeared before the committal court also and was enlarged on bail. At that juncture, the petitioner secured employment and the compulsions of his employment compelled him to remain in the country of his employment. He was not hence able to return and participate in the proceedings. The case against the petitioner has now been split up. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes. 2. According to the petitioner he is absolutely innocent. His absence was not wilful or deliberate. He is suffering from ailments. He is returning from his place of employment to India to get the necessary treatment. He is expected to be in India Crl.M.C. No.211 of 2009 2 shortly. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But he apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is therefore prayed that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner. 3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider such application on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. 4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for 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, in Crl.M.C. No.211 of 2009 3 accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has ailments. The petitioner can bring that fact to the notice of the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders in the bail application to be filed by the petitioner taking note of all the relevant circumstances including the ailments of the petitioner. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-