IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 4194 of 2007()
1. MATHEW PATHISSERIL, AGED 65,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :11/07/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 4194 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
allegations, inter alia, under Sec.3 of the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The prayer for anticipatory bail is obviously not
sustainable in view of the specific bar under Sec.18 of the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these
circumstances, only seeks a lesser relief. He prays that there
may be a direction to the learned Magistrate to consider the
bail application on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously. Merely because the offence is triable by a
Court of Session, the learned Magistrate may not take the
view that he is not jurisdictionally competent to consider the
bail application. With that clarification and with a direction to
B.A. NO. 4194 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
dispose of the matter on the date of surrender itself, this Court
may dispose of the petition, it is submitted.
3. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the
learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The position of law
has been laid down clearly in the decisions reported in Ali v.
State of Kerala (2000 (2) K.L.T. 280); Shanu v. State of
Kerala (2000 (3) K.L.T. 452); Krishnakumar v. State of
Kerala (2005 (1) K.L.D. (Cri) 42 and P.P. Kader v. State of
Kerala (2005 (1) K.L.D. (Cri) 250). I have no reason to assume
that the learned Magistrate does not know the law or will not
apply the law correctly. Regarding the expeditiously disposal
also, I do not think any specific direction is necessary. 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).
3. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the
observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned
Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to
the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate
B.A. NO. 4194 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and
expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.
4. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge