IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 424 of 2009 -------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 193/2008 OF KOODAL POLICE STATION) ......... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- ROY, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O MATHAI, VADAKKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, POTHUPARA, KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT/ STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOODAL. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NO. 430/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos.424, 430, 432, 433 & 435 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioners in these cases are accused in crimes registered at the Koodal Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act. Investigation in these cases are complete. Final reports have already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings have been registered. Reckoning the petitioners as absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioners by the learned Magistrate in the respective cases. Such processes are chasing the petitioners now. The petitioners 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. Crl.M.C. Nos.424, 430, 432, 433 & 435 of 2009 -: 2 :- 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 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, this Crl.M.C is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to Crl.M.C. Nos.424, 430, 432, 433 & 435 of 2009 -: 3 :- 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. Needless to say, the application for bail will have to be considered in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22). 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/