IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 29TH APRIL 2008 / 9TH VAISAKHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2635 of 2008() ----------------------------- CP.64/2007 of J.M.F.C.-I, MAVELIKKARA CRIME NO.78/04 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : ----------------- SHAHUL HAMEED.AGED 57, S/O. AMBALATHUVEETIL THARAYIL HYDROSE, THIRUVENKITAM DESOM, IRINGAPURAM VILLAGE CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKARA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 2635 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.395 of the IPC. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioner was not available and the case is now pending as L.P.No.17/08 ie., C.P.No.64/07. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His address was wrongly given and that is why the service could not be effected. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner apprehends that his application for regular bail B.A. No. 2635 of 2008 -: 2 :- may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate to release him on bail when he appears before the learned Magistrate. 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 the petitioner's application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks 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. Needless to B.A. No. 2635 of 2008 -: 3 :- say, the application for bail will have to be considered in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22). Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge