IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 784 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 175/07 OF PAZHAYANNOOR POLICE STATION CC.226/2007 of J.M.F.C.,VADAKKANCHERRY ....................... PETITIONER : 2ND ACCUSED: ----------------------------- N.SREEKUMAR, S/O.SANKUNNI NAIR, AGED 29 YEARS, SUSHEELA NIVAS, NOTTANTHODIYIL HOUSE, KANIARKKODE P.O., THIRUVILAMALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, PAZHAYANNOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 784 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the second accused in a pending calender case and he faces indictment for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 353 I.P.C. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He has been shown as an accused in the final report. Cognizance has accordingly been taken and the case has been registered against the petitioner. Reckoning him as absconding, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. Such process are chasing him. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the petitioner his absence was not willful. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate. But he apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and B.A.No. 784 of 2008 2 expeditiously. It is in these circumstances prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to release the petitioner on bail on the date of surrender itself. 3. It is certainly 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 the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he surrenders before the learned Magistrate, 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 by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe 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 B.A.No. 784 of 2008 3 proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R. BASANT) Judge tm