High Court Kerala High Court

Nijith vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008

Kerala High Court
Nijith vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 1936 of 2008()


1. NIJITH, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.SAJEEV

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :26/03/2008

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                       B.A.No.1936 of 2008
                      -------------------------------------
              Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008

                                  ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 1st

accused. He faces indictment in a prosecution, inter alia, under

Section 308 r/w 149 I.P.C. The case is pending before the

Sessions Court. All the co-accused have already been tried, found

not guilty and acquitted. The petitioner was not available for trial.

The case against him has been split up. He was employed

abroad. He was released on bail at the committal stage. But

thereafter the petitioner could not appear before the Sessions

Court as he had secured employment and was compelled to be

abroad in connection with his employment. The petitioner now

finds coercive processes issued by the learned Additional

Assistant Sessions Judge chasing him.

2. According to the petitioner he is absolutely innocent.

His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. He is willing to

surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. But

he apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be

considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance

B.A.No.1936 of 2008 2

with law and expeditiously. It is therefore prayed that 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 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 bail 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.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-

B.A.No.1936 of 2008 3