IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4821 of 2008() ------------------------------------ C.P. NO.77/2008 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.II, PATHANAMTHITTA. ..... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- BINU JOHN,S/O.JOHN, KAMUKUMPALLY HOUSE, V.KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, VAKAYAR P.O. KOZHANCHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4821 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under the Kerala Abkari Act. The alleged incident took place in 2004. The petitioner has been arrayed as the 2nd accused. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He has not been arrested in the course of investigation. He was blissfully ignorant and unaware of any such proceedings against him. Now final report has been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal Proceedings has been registered. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 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 Crl.M.C. No.4821 of 2008 2 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, in accordance with law, expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself and in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22]. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-