IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2205 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/06/2008 IN LP 197/03 IN CP.52/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT- II,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- GIREESH KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, KUNNATHU VEEDU, IDANADU MURI, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.R.RENJITH RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2205 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act. The crime was registered long back. Investigation was completed and the final report was filed. Cognizance was taken and the committal proceeding was registered in the year 2002. The petitioner was not available. The case against him was split up and transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases in 2003. The petitioner is the sole accused in the case. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes. 2. The petitioner had moved the learned Sessions Judge Crl.M.C. No. 2205 of 2008 -: 2 :- for anticipatory bail. The same was turned down by Annexure- A1 order. 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 (2003 (1) KLT 339). Crl.M.C. No. 2205 of 2008 -: 3 :- 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. Needless to say, the application for bail will have to be considered in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22). sD/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge