Anoop vs S.I.Of Police on 12 September, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2828 of 2007()


1. ANOOP, S/O.SOMARAJAN PILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. S.I.OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.R.SUNIL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :12/09/2007

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                    = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                       Cr.M.C.No.2828 of 2007
                    = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

               Dated this the 12th day of September, 2007

                                 ORDER

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences

punishable, inter alia, under Sections 447 and 308 IPC. Investigation

is complete. Final report has been filed. Committal proceedings has

been registered. The petitioner has never been arrested and released

on bail in the case. He never appeared before the learned Magistrate.

2. After taking cognizance coercive processes are issued against

the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner finds such

processes chasing him. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail .

That petition was rejected. The petitioner is now willing to surrender

before the learned Magistrate, but he apprehends that his application

for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in

accordance with law and expeditiously. He hence prays that

appropriate directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in

favour of the petitioner.

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

Cr.M.C.No.2828 of 2007

2

consider such application on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific

direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have

already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent

of Police [2003(1) KLT 339].

4. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but

with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears before the

learned Magistrate and applies for 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, unless there are compelling reasons.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
sj
/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE