IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 629 of 2008()
1. RADHIKA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :28/01/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A. Nos. 629, 630
& 631 OF 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008
ORDER
These applications are for anticipatory bail. The common
petitioners are accused 2 and 3. They face indictment in three
separate prosecutions – all pending before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kollam. The petitioners were not arrested
at the crime stage. Investigation is complete. Final report
has been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned
C.J.M. Calendar Case has been registered. Reckoning the
petitioners as absconding accused, warrants of arrest have
been issued against the petitioners by the learned C.J.M. The
petitioners find such warrants of arrest chasing them.
2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely
innocent. Their earlier absence was not wilful or deliberate.
They have not been served with any notice. The petitioners, in
B.A. Nos. 629, 630
& 631 OF 2008 -: 2 :-
these circumstances, want to surrender before the learned
C.J.M. and seek regular bail. The petitioners apprehend that
their applications for regular bail may not be considered by the
learned C.J.M. 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 C.J.M. to
release them on bail when they appear before the learned C.J.M.
3. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned
C.J.M. and explain to the learnedC.J.M. the circumstances under
which they could not earlier appear before the learned C.J.M. I
have no reason to assume that the learned C.J.M. 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).
5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with
the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the
learned C.J.M. and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice
B.A. Nos. 629, 630
& 631 OF 2008 -: 3 :-
to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned C.J.M. must
proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously –
on the date of surrender itself.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge