IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2441 of 2008() ------------------------- SC.160/2003 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- SHANMUGHAN, S/O.SANKARAN, KALATHU VEEDU, KANDARAMATHUPADY, PALAKKATIRI, NAGALASSERY, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALISSERY POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C No.2441 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 307 I.P.C. Altogether there were 12 accused persons. Petitioner was the 6th accused. Even though he had entered appearance and had participated in the trial till the stage of 313 examination, he could not appear thereafter as he had to leave India to take up employment abroad. He could not return. Reckoning him as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. The co-accused have already been tried, found not guilty and acquitted. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. All the co- accused having already been acquitted, the petitioner wants to appear before the learned Judge and seek acquittal on the specific allegations on which the co-accused were acquitted. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. But he apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Judge on Crl.M.C No.2441 of 2008 2 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 petitioner. 3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Judge and explain to the learned Judge the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Judge. I have no reason to assume that the learned Judge 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 petitioner appears before the learned Judge and applies for 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C No.2441 of 2008 3