IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2007 / 1ST ASHADHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 2011 of 2007() ------------------------- CRIME NO.254/CR/98 OF CRIME BRANCH CID, ERNAKULAM. PETITIONER: ------------ SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. AYAPPAN, PRAPPANADATH MADAM, ENGANDIYOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI.M.S. BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/6/07, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.NO. 2011 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2007 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.420 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. The case was registered as early as in 2002. It is submitted that on account of the non-appearance of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. 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 Crl.M.C.NO. 2011 OF 2007 -: 2 :- Magistrate. 2. 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). 3. 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, unless compelling Crl.M.C.NO. 2011 OF 2007 -: 3 :- and exceptional reasons are there. 4. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge