High Court Kerala High Court

Prasanna Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
Prasanna Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 8129 of 2007()


1. PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :08/01/2008

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J
                       ------------------------------------
                        B.A.No.8129 of 2007
                       -------------------------------------
              Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008

                                   ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations

in a case registered for offences punishable under Section 323

and 341 r/w 34 I.P.C. All offences alleged are bailable, it is

submitted. The case stood posted to 04.12.2007. There was a

direction to the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate

on 04.12.07. The petitioner did not appear before the learned

Magistrate. Consequently the learned Magistrate has issued

coercive processes against the petitioner. The petitioner finds a

warrant of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate chasing him.

2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent.

His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. He is willing to

surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. But

he apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be

considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance

with law and expeditiously. It is therefore prayed that directions

under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the

petitioner.

B.A.No.8129 of 2007 2

3. It is 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 such application 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 in Alice

George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)

KLT 339].

4. This bail application is, in these circumstances,

dismissed, but with the specific observation 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 appropriate

orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of surrender

itself.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-