Kerala High Court
Biju And Another vs State Of Kerala on 21 August, 2008
Author: R.Basant
Bench: R.Basant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3182 of 2008()
1. BIJU AND ANOTHER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :21/08/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 3182 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008
ORDER
The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act. They were arrested and enlarged on bail, it is submitted. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceeding has been registered. Summons were issued to the petitioners. They were directed to appear on 21/7/08. On that day, they entrusted the case to a counsel to make representation and file an application to excuse their absence. But the counsel was held up in a traffic block and could not reach court in time. As there was no representation for the petitioners, non-bailable warrants of arrest have been issued against them by the learned Magistrate. Such processes are chasing the petitioners now. Crl.M.C. No. 3182 of 2008 -: 2 :- 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 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 Crl.M.C. No. 3182 of 2008 -: 3 :- (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 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/ Crl.M.C. No. 3182 of 2008 -: 4 :-