IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3184 of 2008() -------------------------------------- (AGAINST CRIME NO.58/08 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS:ACCUSED NO.1 & 2: --------------------------------------------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNA KURUP, S/O.BHASKARAN UNNITHAN, AGED 40 YEARS, PATHILAYATHU VEEDU, THENGAMAM MURI, PALLIKKAL VILLAGE. 2. RAJKUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, SREEJA BHAVAN, THENGAMAM, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3184 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under the Explosive Substances Act. The petitioners were not arrested at the crime stage. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioners have not entered appearance so far. Reckoning the petitioners as absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioners by the learned Magistrate. 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. The petitioners, in these circumstances, want to surrender Crl.M.C. No. 3184 of 2008 -: 2 :- 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 the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate Crl.M.C. No. 3184 of 2008 -: 3 :- 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/