IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2295 of 2008 ---------------------------------- C.C.NO.313/2000 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/ 3RD ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ B. SATHEESH NAIR, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR T.C NO. 7/1426, KATTACHAL, THIRUMALA. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2008, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NO. 2297/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos. 2295 & 2297 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 ORDER The common petitioner faces indictment in two separate prosecutions both before the same court - in one, he faces allegations of having committed offences, inter alia, under Sec.420 of the IPC; whereas in the other, he faces allegations of having committed offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.408 of the IPC. In both cases, the petitioner had entered appearance and was enlarged on bail. On 7/1/08, when one of these two cases were posted before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner was unable to appear and it is submitted that, through his counsel, he had made application to excuse his absence. That application was rejected and a non- bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. Because of the pendency of such warrant, the petitioner could not Crl.M.C. Nos. 2295 & 2297 of 2008 -: 2 :- appear in the other case for fear that he may be remanded when he appears as a warrant is issued against him in the earlier case. 2. In these circumstances, reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, the learned Magistrate has issued coercive processes against the petitioner in both the cases. Such processes are chasing the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 3. The petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner 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, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate to release him on bail when he appears before the learned Magistrate. 4. 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 Crl.M.C. Nos. 2295 & 2297 of 2008 -: 3 :- 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). 5. In the result, these Crl.M.Cs. are dismissed; but with the 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. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge