IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 3438 of 2007() ------------------------- CC.100/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 5: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRASAD B.K., S/O. BHASKARAN, KARTHIKAPPALLIL VEEDU, KUTTAMPEROOR MURIYIL, MANNAR VILLAGE, P.O.KUTTAMPEROOR, PIN-689 623. 2. SREEKUMAR, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, KALAVARA VEETTIL, KUTTAMPEROOR MURIYIL, ENNAIKKADU VILLAGE, ENNAIKKADU P.O. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAIR RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA: ------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No. 3438 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of November, 2007 ORDER Petitioners along with co-accused face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 447and 427 IPC. The petitioners had entered appearance. They were enlarged on bail. The matter has reached the stage of trial. On 12.11.07 when the matter was posted for evidence, the petitioners could not appear before the court. Through counsel they made an application. The same was dismissed. Warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The absence of the petitioners earlier was not wilful. It is submitted that the petitioners through counsel filed an application to condone their non-appearance. But the learned Magistrate has not accepted the application to condone their absence. The petitioners are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But they apprehend that their application for bail Crl.M.C.No. 3438 of 2007 2 may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. In these circumstances, appropriate directions may be issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C and/ 482 Cr.P.C, prays the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. It is 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 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 application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation 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 proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself, Crl.M.C.No. 3438 of 2007 3 unless there are compelling reasons. 5. In the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case there shall be a direction that the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners shall not be executed till 28.11.07. On or before that date, the petitioners must appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) sj /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE