MOHANAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 1st accused in a crime registered, inter alia, under Sec.394 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. Accused 2 and 3 have already been tried, found not guilty and acquitted, it is submitted. But, the case against the petitioner could not be proceeded with as the petitioner was not available. The alleged incident took place in 1999. The case was registered initially as C.C.No.714/99. After trial and acquittal of the co-accused, the case against the accused was split up and is now pending as C.C.No.800/04. The petitioner did not make himself available before the learned Magistrate. Consequently, the learned Magistrate has issued a non- bailable warrant of arrest to procure the presence of the petitioner. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends that the learned Magistrate may not consider his application for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. In these circumstances, he prays that directions under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail when he surrenders and applies for bail. I find no merit whatsoever in the said prayer.

(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 the petitioner's application 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).