IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2034 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.61/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. KITHER MUHAMMED, S/O.CHELLA RAWTHER, 23/171, RAHUL HOUSE, KUNNATHOORMEDU, PALAKKAD. 2. C.K.VENU, S/O.KRISHNAN, THEKKEKKADU, CHITTILAMCHERY, ALATHOOR, PALAKKAD. 3. RAJESH, S/O.SUKUMARAN, ARAVAKKAL HOUSE, MANALOOR, KANNADI, PALAKKAD. 4. MURALIKRISHNAN, S/O.KUTTA GUPTHAN, PATTIVARAMBATH HOUSE, KADAMPAZHIPURAM, PALAKKAD. 5. JINEESH, S/O.RAJENDRAN, MOZHIKUNNATH MANA, MELEPATTAMPI, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD. 6. K.P.M.SHEREEF, S/O.PAREEKUTTY HAJI, KURIYANKODVALAPPIL, KUTTANADU, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD. 7. C.V.SATHEESH, S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, SUDHI NIVAS, AMBIKAPURAM, KALPATHI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.ABDUL RAHIM RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD (REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON 29/05/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2034 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 452 I.P.C. All the petitioners, except accused 10 and 11, had earlier appeared before the learned Magistrate and were enlarged on bail. They could not later appear before the learned Magistrate. Reckoning them as absconding accused, the case against them has been split up and coercive processes have been issued against them. The petitioners find such processes issued by the learned Magistrate chasing them. 2. According to the petitioners they are absolutely innocent. Their absence was not willful or deliberate, but on account of reasons beyond their control. They are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate, but he apprehend that their applications for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Crl.M.C.No. 2034 of 2008 2 It is in these circumstances prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to release the petitioners on bail on the date of surrender itself. 3. It is certainly 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 the applications for bail to be filed by the petitioners when they surrender before the learned Magistrate 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 by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe 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 Crl.M.C.No. 2034 of 2008 3 proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R. BASANT) Judge tm