IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 297 of 2008() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN LPC.34/06 IN CP.192/2005 of J.M.F.C.,TALIPARAMBA Cr.No.759/02 of TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.5: ------------------------------ SHYJU.A.V., S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 25 YEARS, ANTHUR HOUSE, KUTTIYERI AMSOM MAVICHERI DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.297 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations as accused No.5 in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 307 I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. Consequently a warrant of arrest is issued by the learned Magistrate to procure the presence of the petitioner. Such processes are chasing the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. He was employed in the Armed Forces and that is why he could not appear earlier. The petitioner apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is therefore prayed that directions under Section 438 and/or 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner. B.A.No.297 of 2008 2 3. 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 have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider such application 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 in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. 4. This bail application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation 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 proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-