IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 297 of 2009 -------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 209/2002 OF KAZHAKOOTTAM POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1 TO 3: ----------------------------------------------- 1. P.S. SAJIKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. SIVASANKARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU, KODANAD POST & VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. CHANDRAMATHY AMMA, AGED 78 YEARS, D/O. DEVAKI AMMA, RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU, KODANAD POST & VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SASI, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. SIVASANKARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU, KODANAD POST & VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ELDHO PAUL. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKOOTTAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SABITHA V.R., AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. VASANTHAKUMARI, CHIRAVILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PANGAPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 297 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under section 498A I.P.C. The first petitioner is the husband. The second petitioner is the mother, aged 78 years and the third petitioner is the sister, aged about 52 years of the first petitioner. They had entered appearance before the learned Magistrate and were enlarged on bail. On 24.10.2008 when the case stood posted for evidence, they were not present before Court. The learned Magistrate, in these circumstances, issued non-bailable warrants to procure the presence of the petitioners. The petitioners find such processes issued by the learned Magistrate chasing them. 2. According to the petitioners they are absolutely innocent. Their absence was not willful or deliberate, but on account of reasons beyond their control. They are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate, but he apprehend that Crl.M.C.No. 297 of 2009 2 their applications for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is in these circumstances prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to release the petitioners on bail on the date of surrender itself. 3. It is certainly 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 applications for bail to be filed by the petitioners when they surrender before the learned Magistrate 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 by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to Crl.M.C.No. 297 of 2009 3 the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. 5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case there shall be a direction that the warrants of arrest issued against the petitioners shall not be executed till 31.1.2009. On or before that date the petitioners shall surrender before the learned Judge and seek regular bail. 6. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm