IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 36 of 2009 ------------------------------ (CRIME NO. 79/2008 OF THE PAYANGADI POLICE STATION) ......... PETITIONER/ 2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ FAISAL, S/O. ULLAL ABDULLA, RESIDING AT FAIZAL MANZIL, KANNAMKULAM, BEKAL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER. RESPONDENTS/ STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 36 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment as the 2nd accused in C.C.No.450/08 of the learned JFCM-I, Payyannur. Cognizance was taken in that case on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation in a crime. In the FIR registered, the petitioner is arrayed as the 2nd accused. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is not the person arrayed as the 2nd accused in the crime. No proper investigation has been conducted and final report has been filed arraying the petitioner as the 2nd accused. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. Crl.M.C. No. 36 of 2009 -: 2 :- He has been brought on the array of accused without proper investigation. He is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. After so appearing, he wants to seek directions under Sec.173(8) Cr.P.C. for the conduct of a proper investigation. According to him, he has been arrayed as an accused without proper investigation. But he apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. He therefore prays for issue of directions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 3. 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). 4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Crl.M.C. No. 36 of 2009 -: 3 :- 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. 5. I make it clear that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner to move appropriate application before the learned Magistrate under Sec.173(8) Cr.P.C. and such application must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits and appropriate orders passed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 36 of 2009 -: 4 :-