IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2157 of 2008() ------------------------- CP.2/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM CRIME NO.350/06 OF SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.4 ------------------------ ANISH @ SREEJITH, S/O KUTTAN, MANJADIVILA VEEDU, ELAMKULAM, SREEKARIYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINT:- ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM BY P.P. SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2157 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.307 and 395 of the IPC. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioner was never arrested at the crime stage or thereafter. Summons was issued by the learned Magistrate to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared through counsel. His application to excuse his absence was rejected. Non-bailable warrant issued by the learned Magistrate is pending. That warrant is chasing the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. He is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular Crl.M.C. No. 2157 of 2008 -: 2 :- bail. But notwithstanding the fact that the summons was issued at the first instance, the petitioner apprehends that his application for bail may be rejected and he may be remanded to custody on the short ground that the offence is triable by a Court of Session. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court had initially issued only summons and, in these circumstances, the learned Magistrate is bound to consider the application for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22). 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 the petitioner's application 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 Crl.M.C. No. 2157 of 2008 -: 3 :- observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks 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 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) and also considering the fact that only summons was issued at the first instance. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge