IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2442 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.327/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- 1. AJIKUMAR, S/O.(LATE) DAMODARAN, AJIBHAVANAM, MANTHUKA P.O., KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA DT. 2. SATHIYAMMA, W/O.(LATE) DAMODARAN, AJIBHAVANAM, MANTHUKA P.O., KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA DT. BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANTHALAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2442 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioners are son and mother in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place in December, 2004 and the crime was registered in 2004. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. The case has been taken on file in 2005. The petitioners have not entered appearance so far. Reckoning them as absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioners. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely innocent. Their absence was not wilful or deliberate. They are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for 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. Crl.M.C. No.2442 of 2008 2 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 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. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners makes another important grievance. The learned Magistrate is likely to insist on execution of bond with sureties. The petitioners have no persons in the locality willing to stand surety for them. In these Crl.M.C. No.2442 of 2008 3 circumstances the petitioners prays that there may be a direction to the learned Magistrate not to insist on execution of bond with sureties. I need only mention that it is for the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek orders to that effect. Their prayer must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. If the learned Magistrate insists on sureties and not of any other method of securing the presence of the petitioners, the learned Magistrate must consider the request of the petitioners for some time to make such sureties available. I make the above observations in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-