IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4586 of 2008()
1. SOBHI GEORGE AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :14/07/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No. 4586 of 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th July, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. This is the second application for anticipatory bail. The
alleged offence is under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. In
connection with the same, a complaint alleging offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was also filed and it was
also taken on file. Two cases are pending before the Magistrate’s
Courts.
3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the amount
could not be paid only because of financial stringency and he
submitted that he is prepared to pay the amount. Considering the
said submission, an earlier anticipatory bail was allowed as per
order dated 19.3.2008 in B.A.No.1644 of 2008. Time limit was fixed
for making the deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- before the court. As per the
said order, if the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time,
the order will stand revoked and the police will be at liberty to
arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law. The
petitioner could not make payment of the amount within the time,
BA.NO.4586/08 2
i.e., within 26.6.2008. But, on the very next day he filed an
application before this Court to extend the time for depositing the
amount offering to pay the amount immediately. The said petition
was dismissed, since the anticipatory bail order stood revoked on
the failure to deposit the amount on or before 26.6.2008, by a self-
working direction.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that non bailable
warrant was issued against the petitioner, since he has not
deposited the amount and since the application for extension of
time was dismissed by this Court. But the petitioner is ready and
willing to deposit the amount and there was only one day’s delay in
not offering the amount for deposit. Therefore, he has filed the
anticipatory bail application again.
5. On hearing both sides, I find that the remedy is not by filing
an anticipatory bail application again. But, the petitioner could not
avail of the benefit under the order passed by another Bench of this
Court in B.A.No.1644 of 2008 only because he could not raise the
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- just one day earlier. For this, technically,
he could not get himself released on bail and he may also be
forced to undergo detention, only for this one day’s delay, it is
submitted. But on the same set of facts, especially since warrant
BA.NO.4586/08 3
has been issued by the trial court and the application for extension
of time has already been dismissed, it may not be proper on my part
now to entertain this petition for anticipatory bail, for legal reasons
and on the ground of propriety.
6. However, I find it necessary to make certain observations
in the peculiar facts of this case, to protect interest of justice. So, if
the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and files an
application for regular bail, learned Magistrate may consider all the
facts discussed in this order into consideration especially the delay
of just one day in raising Rs.3 lakhs and the peculiar circumstances
under which the earlier anticipatory bail order got itself revoked.
Since he was ready with the money on the very next day, i.e., on
27.6.2008, he had filed an application expressing his willingness to
deposit the amount and seeking extension of time, which could not
be allowed for solid reasons.
7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the
learned Magistrate is directed to consider the application, if any,
filed and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. I make it
clear that there will be no bar for the learned Magistrate to receive
the amount which the petitioner offers to deposit in court, in
compliance with the earlier direction contained in B.A.No.1644 of
BA.NO.4586/08 4
2008. It is also to be mentioned in this context that anticipatory
bail order in B.A.No.1644 of 2008 was passed by this Court and the
amount was fixed and the petition was allowed only after hearing
the de facto complainant also.
This petition is disposed of accordingly.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.