IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 129 of 2008() ---------------------------- CP.144/2007 of J.M.F.C.,TALIPARAMBA CR.NO.267/07 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.6,10,11,12,14 & 21: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KUTTUKKAN MOIDU @ MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O. ALI HAJI, AGED 31 YEARS, ADVOCATE, NEAR MADRASSA, TALIPARAMBA P.O.,TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. PARAPPURATH ISMAIL, S/O. ABDULLA, AGED 35 YEARS, ADIKKUMPARA, TALIPARAMBA P.O., TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. RAFEEQUE, S/O. PALLAKKAN ABDU, AGED 23 YEARS, ARRERAKATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, PULIMPARAMBA, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM,KEEZHATTOR DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. M.K.P. SHAMEER, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 26 YEARS, M.K.P.HOUSE, NHATTUVAYAL, TALIPARAMBA P.O., TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. K.P. NOUFAL, S/O. BATHALI HASSAN, AGED 25 YEARS, KAYAKKOOL THIRUVATTOORKARAN HOUSE, NEAR YATHEEMKHANA, MANNA, TALIPARAMBA, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. C.P. SHABEER, S/O. SHEREEF, AGED 20 YEARS, CHULLIYODAN POTTICHI HOUSE, KARYAMBALAM, TALIPARAMBA P.O., TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.267/07 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT) REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.129 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Section 436 read with 149 I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings have been registered. The petitioners have received summons from the court. They have entered appearance through counsel. Their applications for condonation of their absence was dismissed. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioners. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioners are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But they apprehend that their application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. They, therefore, pray that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioners on bail when they appear and apply for bail. B.A.No.129/08 2 3. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate, the circumstances under which they 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 petitioners 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 Alice George vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339]. 4. In the result, this bail application is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply 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. Needless to say, their applications for regular bail must be considered in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1)KLT 22]). (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.129/08 3 B.A.No.129/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007