IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4534 of 2008() ------------------------- SC.538/2005 OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT(AD HOC-II), ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.4 --------------------------- 1. JOBY, S/O.THOMAS, OLIKKAL HOUSE, KADALIKKAD KARA, MANJALLOOR VILLAGE. 2. THANKAKUTTAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, KUDILIL HOUSE, ETHANELLOOR KARA, ETHANELLOOR VILLAGE. 3. MADHU, S/O.P.N.MOHANDAS, SREESHYLAM HOUSE, NEAR VETTUKALLUMPEEDIKA JUNCTION, ETHANELLOOR KARA, ETHANELLOOR VILLAGE. 4. VINOD, S/O.HARIKUMAR, VARAKARIPPILLIYIL HOUSE, MUPPATHUPADI BHAGOM, ETHANELLOOR KARA, ETHANELLOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4534 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008 ORDER The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.308 read with Sec.34 IPC. The case is pending before the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc-II), Ernakulam. The case was listed for trial to 20/11/08. The petitioners were not present. It is submitted that an application under Sec.317 Cr.P.C. was filed; but the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioners. The petitioners find such processes chasing them. 2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. It was hoped that the matter would be settled. But it dawned on the petitioners that the settlement was not going to be Crl.M.C. No. 4534 of 2008 -: 2 :- reported to court on the date of posting. They had fallen sick also. It was, in these circumstances, that they happened to be absent and the application was filed. The petitioners, in these circumstances, want to surrender before the learned Judge and seek regular bail. The petitioners apprehend that their applications for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Judge on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners have come to this Court for a direction to the learned Judge to release them on bail when they appear before the learned Magistrate. 3. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned Judge and explain to the learned Judge the circumstances under which they could not earlier appear before the learned Judge. I have no reason to assume that the learned Judge would not consider the petitioners' applications 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). 4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the Crl.M.C. No. 4534 of 2008 -: 3 :- observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Judge and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Judge must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge