IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 547 of 2009() ---------------------------------- C.C. 355/2002 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I ,KANNUR. CRIME NO.121/2001 OF KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION ....... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED -------------------------- K.P. ASHRAF, KURIDILEPURAYIL HOME, KOYIPRA - VELLORA AMSOM, KOYIPRA DESOM, THALIPARAMBA. BY ADV. MR.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.M.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 547 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment as the 2nd accused in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Sec.379 read with Sec.34 IPC. Cognizance was taken long back as can be seen from the number assigned to the case i.e., C.C.No.355/02. The co-accused has already been tried found not guilty and acquitted, it is submitted. The petitioner was not available for trial. The case against the petitioner has been transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases. According to the petitioner, compulsions of his employment obliged him to go abroad and it was hence that he was not able to appear before the learned Magistrate. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. Such processes are Crl.M.C. No. 547 of 2009 -: 2 :- chasing the petitioner now. 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. 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 reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police Crl.M.C. No. 547 of 2009 -: 3 :- (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. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/