High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs State Of Kerala on 18 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs State Of Kerala on 18 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2829 of 2010()


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

                        Vs


1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :18/05/2010

 O R D E R
                             K. HEMA, J
                         ----------------------
                     B.A.No. 2829 OF 2010
                  -----------------------------------
           Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010

                              O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. Petitioner is accused in CC.420/08 before the Magistrate

Court. The offence alleged is under section 379 IPC.

3. According to the petitioner, he was bound to appear

before the Magistrate Court on 29.3.2010, after having been

granted bail by the Magistrate court. On that day he could not

appear due to reasons beyond his control. As per Annexure -3

order issued by the Magistrate court, Coimbatore, he was

directed to appear before the Magistrate court daily twice

between 9 am and 5 pm. Therefore, he could not appear in the

Magistrate court as he had to appear before police. It is also

pointed out that taking into the peculiar mental condition of the

petitioner, anticipatory bail was granted to petitioner in certain

cases and he is under treatment at NIMHANS, Banglore.

4. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner was already

granted bail by the Magistrate court and non bailable warrant was

issued against him for his arrest, since he failed to appear in the

B.A. No.2829/10 2

court on the date fixed for his appearance. The warrant is issued

in the normal course by the court because of his failure to appear

in court. Such warrant is to be executed unless it is illegal.

Petitioner has not challenged the order issuing warrant and he

has no case that it is illegally issued. In such circumstances, I am

not inclined to exercise my discretion u/s.438 Cr.P.C. to grant bail

since it will amount to interference with the judicial discretion

exercised by the Magistrate Court. Anticipatory bail cannot be

granted in such circumstances explained above.

5. The petitioner is bound to appear before the trial court

and he is at liberty to put forward all contentions before the said

court. I am confident that if the relevant matters are brought

before the Magistrate Court, appropriate orders will be issued by

the Magistrate court itself. But it may not be proper to grant

anticipatory bail, in the circumstances explained above.

6. Petitioner shall appear at the Magistrate Court without

any delay and may seek bail, in which event, shall take into

consideration all the contentions raised and dispose of the bail

petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the same day.

This petition is disposed of accordingly.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

Sou.