SURENDRAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thepetitioneristhesoleaccusedinaprosecution,interalia, under Sections 447 and 506(ii) I.P.C. The case was initially registered as C.C.No. 357 of 2003. Consequent to the non- appearance of the petitioner, it was transferred to the list of long pending cases and is now pending before the J.F.C.M. Court, SasthamcottaasL.P. 24of 2006.Accordingtothepetitioner heis absolutely innocent.There was no intentional or deliberate default on his part. He is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate. He apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is in these circumstances prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail.

(2.) It is certainly for the petitioner toappear before the learned Magistrate and explainto thelearned Magistrate thecircumstances 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 application for bail on merits, in accordance with lawand expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision inAlice Georgev. Dy.S.P. of Police(2003 (1) KLT 339).

(3.) This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed, but subject to the above observations/directions. I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficientpriornoticeto the Prosecutorinchargeofthecase, thelearned Magistrate must proceedto pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself.