IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 954 of 2007()
1. UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 35,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. INDIRA, W/O.BHARGAVY,
For Petitioner :SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :15/02/2007
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
-------------------------------
Bail Application Nos. 954 & 955 of 2007
-------------------------------
DATED: 15th February 2007
O R D E R
The common petitioner in C.R.223/CR/94 of C.B.C.I.D.
for offences punishable under Sections 304 (B) and 306 read
with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and in a private complaint arising out of the
same occurrence in which the wife of the petitioner had
committed suicide, seeks anticipatory bail. The private
complaint was taken on file by the J.F.C.M., Kattakkada and
numbered as C.P. 19/1996.
2. Consequent on the non-appearance of the petitioner
and another accused, the case against them was re-filed as C.P.
63/1998. The police charge case upon which cognizance was
taken was numbered as C.P. 16/1998. Consequent on the non-
appearance of the petitioner the case was re-filed as C.P.
277/2000.
3. The case of the petitioner is that since he was abroad
he did not receive summons from the committal court and
while so, the rest of the accused have been tried and acquitted
by the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara in S.C. 115/98
Bail A.No.954 & 955 of 2007 -:2:-
and S.C. 628/2001, after a joint trial.
4. Admittedly non-bailable warrants of arrest are pending
against the petitioner from the committal court. Anticipatory
bail cannot be granted to nullify the process issued by a court of
competent jurisdiction. There is no reason why the petitioner
should not surrender before the committal court and seek
regular bail after explaining the circumstances under which non-
bailable warrants came to be issued against him. Accordingly, if
the petitioner surrenders before the committal court and files
applications for regular bail within two weeks from today, the
same shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same
day on which they are filed after considering the explanation
offered by the petitioner for his previous non-appearance and
after considering his contention that the co-accused in the case
have been acquitted after trial.
With the above observation these applications are disposed
of .
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
Bail A.No.954 & 955 of 2007 -:3:-
ani