High Court Kerala High Court

Daisy Jacob vs The State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Daisy Jacob vs The State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2526 of 2008()


1. DAISY JACOB, W/O.JACOB, AGED 36,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.RETHEESH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :07/07/2008

 O R D E R
                             R. BASANT, J.
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   Crl.M.C.No. 2526 of 2008
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
               Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008

                                O R D E R

The petitioner, along with the co-accused, faces indictment

in a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. She is the second

accused. She was residing abroad. She had not come to India

after cognizance was taken. Reckoning her as absconding, the

learned Magistrate has issued non-bailable warrants against the

petitioner. Such warrants are chasing her. She apprehends

imminent arrest.

2. According to the petitioner she is absolutely innocent.

Her absence was not willful. She has reached India only on

5.7.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate. But

she apprehends that her 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

Crl.M.C.No. 2526 of 2008
2

that 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 she 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 she

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

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

expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. In the peculiar facts and

Crl.M.C.No. 2526 of 2008
3

circumstances of this case, there shall be a direction that the warrant of

arrest issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till 15.7.2008,

on or before which date, the petitioner must appear before the learned

Magistrate and seek regular bail.

Hand over the order.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm