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. 208 of 2009() ------------------------------- L.P. NO.62/2008 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NADAPURAM. .......... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------- YOUSAF, S/O.IBRAYIL, KULAYANA VEETIL (HOUSE), NARIPPATTA AMSOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.208 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 r/w 149 I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The Committal Proceedings has been registered. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, the case against him has been transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes. 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 apply for 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 Crl.M.C. No.208 of 2009 2 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 accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself, in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22]. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-