IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3248 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/06/2008 IN CMP. 3690 /2008 IN CC.35/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SURESH BABU, S/O. VASUDEVAN, CHITTANIPARAYIL VEEDU, METHOTTY KARA, VELLIYAMATTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJAR POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3248 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment as 1st accused in a prosecution where offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.498A IPC are alleged. On a date when the case was posted for examination of witnesses, the petitioner applied for time. That was the third occasion when the witnesses had come before court to tender evidence. The learned Magistrate was not pleased to accept the prayer for adjournment. The learned Magistrate proceeded to pass Annexure-A1 order dismissing the prayer for adjournment. A non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. Such coercive processes are chasing the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has split up the Crl.M.C. No.3248 of 2008 -: 2 :- case against the petitioner and is proceeding with the trial against the co-accused. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the absence of the petitioner and his consequent inability to cross- examine the witnesses were on account of reasons beyond his control. 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. 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 the petitioner's application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision Crl.M.C. No.3248 of 2008 -: 3 :- reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is 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. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case against him has been split up. The petitioner, it is submitted, shall surrender forthwith and request the court to continue the trial against him along with the co-accused in C.C.No.35/07 itself. Needless to say, the petitioner can make appropriate request and the learned Magistrate must consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ Crl.M.C. No.3248 of 2008 -: 4 :-