IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 326 of 2009() -------------------------------- CP.79/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL. CRIME NO.349/2006 OF KAZHAKUTTAM POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 8 AND 9 ----------------------- 1. RAJESH, S/O.SATHYASENAN, AGED 32 YEARS VAHAPPANA VEEDU, NEW RAILWAY CROSS, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAZHAKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MAHESH, S/O.SATHYASENAN, AGED 32 YEARS VAHAPPANA VEEDU, NEW RAILWAY CROSS, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAZHAKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 326 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment as accused Nos. 8 and 9 in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. They have not been arrested at the crime stage. Final report has been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The learned Magistrate has registered committal proceedings and has issued summons to the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The petitioners, on the last date of posting, had entered appearance through counsel and had applied to excuse their absence. That application was allowed and the case now stands posted to 23.1.2009. They are willing to appear before the learned Magistrate tomorrow and apply for bail. Apprehending that such application may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously, they have come before this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issue of directions. Crl.M.C.No. 326 of 2009 2 2. I am at a lose to understand the apprehension of the petitioners. The learned Magistrate has advisedly, it appears to me, chosen to exercise the discretion under section 204 Cr.P.C. to issue only a summons and not a warrant. It is idle for the petitioners now to assume that the learned Magistrate, who has so exercised his discretion would not grant bail to them when they appear before court in response to the summons issued. It is puerile to make such an assumption. The position is made clear in the decision in Sreekumar v. State of Kerala (2008 (3) KLT 748). 3. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would be following any alleged 'practice' of remanding the petitioners to custody after having issued a summons directing them to appear before him. That apprehension does appear to me to be totally baseless. 4. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed, but with the specific observation that when the petitioners appear and apply for bail, such application must be considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself in the light of the Crl.M.C.No. 326 of 2009 3 decision referred above as also the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 5. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm