IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2337 of 2008() ------------------------- C.P.NO.40/08 OF J.M.F.C-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CRIME NO.77 OF 1997 OF PEROORKKADA POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ------------ RAKESH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, MELEPANAUARA VEEDU SANTHOSH NAGAR, KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE MUTTADA (PO) TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2337 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 307 I.P.C. The co-accused have already been tried, found not guilty and acquitted, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner-the 10th accused was not available for trial. He has not appeared before the learned Magistrate so far. The case against him has been split up. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His father was employed in the Lakshadweep Islands and he was residing along with his father. That is why he could not appear. 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 Crl.M.C. No.2337 of 2008 2 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 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 and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C. No.2337 of 2008 3