IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Bail Appl No. 1932 of 2008() 1. P.R.SIJU,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.RAJAPPAN Petitioner 2. PONNAMMA,AGD 62 YEARS,W/O.RAJAPPAN 3. RAJAPPAN,AGED 68 YEARS Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice [ENTITY] Dated :26/03/2008 O R D E R [ENTITY], J. [CASE NUMBER] Dated this the 26th day of March 2008 O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging commission of offences punishable under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]. According to the petitioners, the allegations against them are totally false. It is prayed that they may be granted anticipatory bail.
2. In view of [SECTION] of the [ACT], the petitioners cannot claim anticipatory bail. Of course, if the allegations would not constitute an offence punishable under the [ACT] and the Section of offence has been included in the [ACT] without any justification, certainly the petitioners are entitled to contend that notwithstanding the erroneous inclusion of such Sections in the [ACT], they are entitled to claim anticipatory bail. But that is not the situation in this case. The contention is only that the allegations are untrue. I am in these circumstances satisfied that [SECTION] of the [ACT] is a clear bar and therefore the petitioners cannot succeed in their claim for anticipatory bail.
3. The petitioners apprehend that the application for regular bail may not considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. I find such apprehension to be totally unjustified. This court had time an again repeated that the mere fact that the offence under [SECTION] of the [ACT] are triable by a Special/Sessions Court constituted under [SECTION] of the Act, the learned Magistrate cannot abdicate his jurisdiction under [SECTION] [ACT] The said position has been reiterated in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
4. 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 find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have been issued in [PRECEDENT].
5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself.
([ENTITY], JUDGE) jsr [ENTITY], J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007