IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 10264 of 2011(A) ------------------------------------------- [CRIME NO.13/2007 OF HARIPAD POLICE STATION AND CC.NO.188/2010 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS COURT-II, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT] ....... PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- A.K.JAYA, W/O.BAHULEYAN NAIR, 48 YEARS, SAKTHISTHAL HOUSE, AYIROORPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.P.H.SHAJAHAN, SRI. KIRHOR.B. RESPONDENT/STATE: -------------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPAD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. N. SURESH. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------- B.A.No.10264 of 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011. ORDER Petitioner, who is the 3rd accused in C.C.No.188/2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, II, Haripad has come up with this petition under Section 438 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, apprehending arrest , detention and torture at the hands of the Investigating Officer. 2. Having heard either side, I find that the offence alleged occurred in 2002 and accused 2 and 4 faced trial and got an order of acquittal. Since the petitioner was absconding since 2002, coercive steps are pending against the petitioner. There is nothing to show that the Investigating Officer has any intention to arrest the petitioner except under the orders of the Trial Court, which was perfectly right in initiating coercive steps. The learned Magistrate has no other option. All actions are only to procure the presence of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the case pending and that she is in any way not involved in the offence alleged. These are matters to be looked into by the learned Magistrate while considering the bail application. Petitioner is at liberty to appraise the circumstances before the learned Magistrate. In the normal course, the petitioner would get regular bail, if applied B.A.No.10264 of 2011 2 for and I find no reason to interdict under Section 438 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, especially when there is nothing to show that the petitioner would not get a fair and just disposal of her bail application, if any filed. In the result, this petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court and to apply for regular bail, which the learned Magistrate shall dispose of on merits, preferably on the same day, provided due notice is given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE su