IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 549 of 2009() --------------------------------- C.C. NO.1038/2004 OF THE JUDL. IST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHANGANACHERRY. .......... PETITIONER(S): 3RD ACCUSED ------------------------ RAJEEVAN .K.U, AGED 31, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, KARUTHETHIL HOUSE VALUTHOOR P.O.,TRICHUR. BY ADV. MR.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION) REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, ALONG WITH CRMC NO.557 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos. 549 & 557 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009 COMMON ORDER The petitioners are accused 1 and 3 and they face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Sec.379 IPC. The petitioners were enlarged on bail; but subsequently there was failure/omission on their part to appear before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has thereupon issued coercive processes against the petitioners. Such processes are chasing the petitioners now. They apprehend imminent arrest in execution of such processes. 2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioners, in these circumstances, want to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioners apprehend that their applications for regular bail Crl.M.C. Nos. 549 & 557 of 2009 -: 2 :- may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners have come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate to release them on bail when they appear before the learned Magistrate. 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 the petitioners' applications 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, these Crl.M.Cs. are dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek 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 Crl.M.C. Nos. 549 & 557 of 2009 -: 3 :- and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.557/09 was actually in judicial custody for some period of time and, in these circumstances, his absence can transparently be seen to be beyond his control. Needless to say, all relevant submissions can be made before the learned Magistrate by the petitioners when their applications for bail are considered by the learned Magistrate. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ Crl.M.C. Nos. 549 & 557 of 2009 -: 4 :-