IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2760 of 2008() ------------------------- LPC.83/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER: 14THK ACCUSED ------------------------- P.P.SIDDIQUE, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, PUTHENPURA HOUSE, P.O.NEERVELI, KUTHUPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENTS: STATE 7 COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2760 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment along with the co-accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.436 read with Sec.149 IPC. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Committal proceedings has been registered by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner was arrayed as the 14th accused in the committal proceedings. The petitioner was never arrested in the course of investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused only in the final report. The petitioner has not, in these circumstances, appeared before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, has issued coercive processes against the petitioner. Crl.M.C. No. 2760 of 2008 -: 2 :- Such processes are chasing the petitioner now. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 3. 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 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 Crl.M.C. No. 2760 of 2008 -: 3 :- (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 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). Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/