IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4586 of 2008() --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. ANTONY, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KANIAMPURAM, CHETTIKAD. 2. DASAN, AGED 60 YEARS, EKKORAN, NIKATHIL, IYYAMPILLY. 3. MARTIN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, PARAPILLY, KOTTUVALLYKAD. 4. SHAJI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, MEKKARA, PALLIPPURAM. 5. JOSE EZHAL, HOUSE NO.6/90 SIMON COLONY, KUDIMANA P.O., KANYAKUMARI. 6. BOBAN, S/O.MARCILY, RANDUTHAIKKAL, MUNAMBAM, ERNAKULAM. 7. YESUDAS, S/O.JOSE, 6/511, PALLIVILOAKAM, POONTHURA. 8. JEROLIN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.JOHNSON, VINAYAM, MUTTAMTHARA. 9. THADEVUS, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SUSAN MICHEAL, 1355 KULACHAL, KANYAKUMARI. 10. JOSEPH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.CHEEKKU, KOLATTUPURAM, PALLIPPURAM. 11. BENNY, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, THANIPALLY, PALLIPPURAM. 12. SIDDAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.DASAN, KAIMAPARAMBIL, PALLIPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.JOHN VIPIN SMT.SHERLY S.A. SMT. SAJITHA GEORGE SMT.REKHA Kss ..2/- ..2... CRL.M.C.NO.4586/2008 RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- ADMINISTRATION OF UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, REPRESENTED BY ITS STANDING COUNSEL AND PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. (CRIME NO.1/2006 OF CHETLATH POLICE STATION, LAKSHADWEEP, CC 10 OF 2008 BEFORE THE JFMC, AMINI). ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4586 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia under Section 391 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Cognizance has already been taken. Calender case has been registered. The petitioners had received process from the court. They had entered appearance through a Mukthiar and had applied for condonation of his absence. The petitioners could not appear before the learned Magistrate on the later date of posting. Reckoning the petitioners as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against them. They apprehend imminent arrest. The case now stands posted to 30.11.2008. 2. According to the petitioners they are absolutely innocent. Their absence was not willful or deliberate, but on account of reasons beyond their control. They are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate, but he apprehend that their applications for bail may not be considered by the learned Crl.M.C.No. 4586 of 2008 2 Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is in these circumstances prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to release the petitioners on bail on the date of surrender itself. 3. It is certainly 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 applications for bail to be filed by the petitioners when they surrender before the learned Magistrate 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 by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must Crl.M.C.No. 4586 of 2008 3 proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. 5. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm