IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 573 of 2008()
1. ANEESH @ MUHAMMED SALI, KOROTTE VEEDU,
... Petitioner
2. NAUSHAD, VANCHIKAPPARATHADATHIL,
3. SHAFEEQ, VALUVATTICKAL VEEDU,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :01/02/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 573 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face
indictment in a prosecution, inter alia, under Section 427 r/w.
149 I.P.C. All offences are bailable, it is submitted.
Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been
filed. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioners have entered
appearance and were enlarged on bail. But later they were not
available to be proceeded with. Some of the co-accused have
already been tried, found not guilty and acquitted. But the case
against the petitioners have been split up. Reckoning them as
absconding, coercive processes have been issued against the
petitioners. They apprehend imminent arrest. They have hence
come to this court with this application for anticipatory bail.
2. According to the petitioners their absence was not
willful. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are willing to appear before the learned Magistrate.
B.A.No. 573 of 2008
2
But they apprehend that their applications 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
appropriate directions may be issued to release the petitioners on bail
on the date of surrender itself.
3. It is certainly for the petitioners to appear before the learned
Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances
under which they could not earlier appear before the learned
Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate
would not consider the applications for bail to be filed by the
petitioners when they surrender 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).
3. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however
hasten to observe that if the petitioners appear before the learned
B.A.No. 573 of 2008
3
Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the
Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed
to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on
the date of surrender itself.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm