IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4569 of 2008() ------------------------- CP.129/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA CRIME NO.305/07 OF KADACKAL POLICE .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.3 --------------- MADHU, S/O.NADESHAN, SARASWATHI VILASOM, PANGILUKADU MURI, KUMMIL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): STATE/COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KADACKAL POLICE STATION, KOTTARAKKARA DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4569 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 ORDER The petitioner as accused No.3 faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage or thereafter. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek Crl.M.C. No. 4569 of 2008 -: 2 :- regular bail. But the petitioner apprehends that the offence being one triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the petitioner's application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is hence prayed that appropriate directions may be issued under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 3. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been issued by this Court in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339) to ensure expeditious disposal of the application for bail filed by the persons surrendering before the Magistrate. 4. In Ali v. State of Kerala (2000 (2) K.L.T. 280); Shanu v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) K.L.T. 452); Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) K.L.D. (Cri) 42 and P.P. Kader v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) K.L.D. (Cri) 250) this Court has already reiterated that the mere fact that the offence is triable exclusively by a Court of Session cannot justify the abdication of the jurisdiction by the Magistrate under Sec.437 Cr.P.C. 5. In these circumstances, I do not find any necessity to issue any further, special or specific directions in favour of the petitioner. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate shall not consider the bail application in the light of Crl.M.C. No. 4569 of 2008 -: 3 :- the precedents referred above on merits and expeditiously. 6. 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. 7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/