Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 10 September, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 5457 of 2007()


1. MANOJ, S/O.BHASKARAN, AGED 32 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :10/09/2007

 O R D E R
                         R. BASANT, J.
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   B.A.No. 5457 of 2007
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
         Dated this the 10th day of September, 2007

                             O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for

offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 354 I.P.C. All

offences are bailable, it is submitted. The petitioner had

entered appearance before the learned Magistrate. He was

enlarged on bail. But subsequently he was not in a position

to appear before the learned Magistrate. Consequent to the

non-appearance of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has

issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner he is absolutely

innocent. His failure/omission to appear earlier was not

wilful, but was due to reasons beyond his control. He is

willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek

bail. He shall co-operate with the Court for the expeditious

disposal of the case. But he apprehends that his application

for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on

merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. In these

B.A.No. 5457 of 2007
2

circumstances it is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to the

learned Magistrate 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 proceed to pass orders on

B.A.No. 5457 of 2007
3

merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender

itself.

(R. BASANT)
Judge

tm