High Court Kerala High Court

T.C.Shaju vs State Of Kerala on 17 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
T.C.Shaju vs State Of Kerala on 17 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 272 of 2008(T)


1. T.C.SHAJU, S/O.CHACKO, THALIKAN HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.VINOD KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :17/01/2008

 O R D E R
                           R. BASANT, J.
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    B.A.No. 272 of 2008
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008

                              O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces

indictment in a prosecution under Sections 279 and 304A I.P.C.

Final report has been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The

case has been filed as C.C. 138 of 2003 before the learned

Magistrate. Consequent to non-appearance of the petitioner,

coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. He

finds such processes chasing him.

2. According to the petitioner his absence was not willful.

No notice or summons was ever served on the petitioner and that

is why he could not appear before the learned Magistrate. The

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

willing to appear 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. It is in these circumstances prayed that

B.A.No. 272 of 2008
2

appropriate directions may be issued to release the petitioner on bail on

the date of surrender itself.

3. It is certainly 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 the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he

surrenders before the learned Magistrate, 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 by this Court in the decision in Alice George

v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339).

4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however

hasten to observe 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

B.A.No. 272 of 2008
3

proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.

(R. BASANT)
Judge

tm