IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 135 of 2009() --------------------------------- CC.296/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR. CRIME NO.34/97 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER(S): 4TH ACCUSED -------------------------- ABOOBACKER, S/O.ASSAINAR, AGED 33 YEARS, MADAMBILLATH HOUSE, THRIKKARIPPUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.SUREESH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No. 135 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner along with 4 others faced allegations in a crime registered under the Indian Arms Act. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioner has been arrayed as the 4th accused. The petitioner was not available for trial. 2 of the 5 accused did stand trial. They were found not guilty and acquitted. On account of the compulsions of his employment, the petitioner had to go abroad. He was hence unable to take part in the proceedings. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, the learned Magistrate has issued coercive processes against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. He is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. But he 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 therefore prayed that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner. Crl.M.C. No. 135 of 2009 2 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 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 petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies 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, in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22]. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-