Petitioner, a fugitive accused facing imminent arrest, sought direction to Magistrate to hear his regular bail application on merits upon surrender. Court dismissed petition but observed Magistrate must expedite hearing on date of surrender after notice to Prosecutor, referring to relevant precedents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930
Crl.MC.No. 3335 of 2008()
-------------------------------------(CRIME NO.507/2007 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION)
PETITIONER:
--------------------
PRABHU, KOYITHALA VEEDU, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA.
BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENT:
----------------------
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
R. BASANT, J.
Crl.M.C. No. 3335 of 2008
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.395 IPC as 6th accused. The alleged incident took place on 4/12/07. The petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage, it is submitted. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioner has not entered appearance. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. Such processes are chasing the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes.
Crl.M.C. No. 3335 of 2008 -: 2 :-
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.
Crl.M.C. No. 3335 of 2008 -: 3 :-
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).
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any special direction is necessary for the Magistrate to consider the petitioner's bail application on merits when he surrenders.
Whether the petitioner's absence earlier was wilful or deliberate given the context.
PRABHU, KOYITHALA VEEDU, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA.
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R. BASANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
