IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3071 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.83/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED 4 & 5 ------------------------- 1. VIJI @ MATHEW, S/O.JACOB, AGED 39, CHIRAYIL VEETTIL, RAMALOOR KARA, THRIKARIYOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K.C.JOSE @ MUKKUDAM JOSE, S/O.CHERIYAN, AGED 48, KURATTU PARAMBIL, AMBIKAPURAM, THALAKKATTU KARA, NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, THALASSERY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3071 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Cognizance has been taken. Crime was registered in the year 2001. Though the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, the petitioners have not appeared before the learned Magistrate. Reckoning the petitioners as absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued by the learned Magistrate against the petitioners. They apprehend imminent arrest in execution of such processes. 2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioners have not received any notice, processes or memo from the police or the court directing them to appear before court. Their absence occurred in these circumstances. They are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. But they apprehend that their 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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioners. Crl.M.C. No.3071 of 2008 2 3. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which they 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 petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and apply 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 and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C. No.3071 of 2008 3