IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2939 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.51 OF 2002 OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION C.P.NO.49/05 (L.P.NO.215/06) BEFORE THE J.F.C.M-II, KOLLAM PETITIONERS: ACCUSED ------------------- 1. EDWIN, S/O.FRANCIS, HOUSE NO.29/6494, NINMITHI COLONY, THOPPIL PURAYIDOM, THANGASSERY, KAIKULANGARA WEST WARD, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. JEROME, S/O.FRANCIS @ THULLI PANCHI, HOUSE NO.29/584, DIVISION NO.46, KAIKULANGARA WEST WARD, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. YESU, S/O.PETER, PANTHAL VEETTIL PURAYIDOM, VADI CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. RAJU @ POODAN RAJU, S/O.JOHN, PANTHAL VEEDU PURAYIDOM, VADI MURI, KAIKULANGARA WARD, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. SHAJI, S/O.ZACHARIA, BONA WEST BONA WEST KADAPPURAM PURAMBOKE, NEAR THANGASSERY BUS STAND, KAIKULANGARA DIVISIONS, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE. 6. JOSE, S/O.THOMAS, KATTAKKALI PURAYIDAM, THANGASSERY CHERRY, KAIKULANGARA WEST WARD, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. STANSILAUS, S/O.ALLALIYAN, NIRMITHI COLONY, THANGASSERY THOPPIL PURAYIDOM, KAIKULANGAR WEST WARD, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST POLICE STAION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2939 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 302 I.P.C. The petitioners have not been arrested so far. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioners have not so far entered appearance. They have not been enlarged on bail. Reckoning them as absconding accused, coercive processes are being initiated against the petitioners by the learned Magistrate. Such processes are chasing the petitioners. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioners they are absolutely innocent. Their absence was not wilful or deliberate. They were not informed that they are accused in this case nor was any summons or notice was ever issued from any court to them. The petitioners are, in these circumstances, absolutely innocent. They had applied for anticipatory bail. Though some of the accused, Crl.M.C. No.2939 of 2008 2 who had applied for anticipatory bail in 2006, were granted anticipatory bail, the petitioners' application for anticipatory bail stands dismissed by Annexure-A2 order. In these circumstances, the petitioners now want to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular 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. 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 Crl.M.C. No.2939 of 2008 3 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, in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22]. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-