IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 784 of 2008()
1. N.SREEKUMAR, S/O.SANKUNNI NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/02/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 784 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the
second accused in a pending calender case and he faces
indictment for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 353
I.P.C. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He has been
shown as an accused in the final report. Cognizance has
accordingly been taken and the case has been registered against
the petitioner. Reckoning him as absconding, coercive processes
have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate.
Such process are chasing him. It is in these circumstances that
the petitioner has come to this Court for anticipatory bail.
2. According to the petitioner his absence was not willful.
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
B.A.No. 784 of 2008
2
expeditiously. It is in these circumstances prayed 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 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. 784 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