IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 20 of 2009() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN LP.58/2004 IN CP.107/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA CRIME NO.72/01 OF THE KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- PRADEEP, S/O. DIVAKARAN VARUVILA PUTHAN VEEDU, MUTTARA MURI, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY P.P. SRI.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 20 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act. Investigation is complete. Cognizance has already been taken. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage or thereafter. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. Such processes are chasing the petitioner now. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to surrender before Crl.M.C. No. 20 of 2009 -: 2 :- 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 Magistrate. 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 Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate Crl.M.C. No. 20 of 2009 -: 3 :- must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. Needless to say, the application for bail will have to be considered in the light of the decisions in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22) and Sreekumar v. State of Kerala (2008 (3) KLT 748). 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/