IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 934 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 71/01 OF EXCISE RANGE, NEDUMANGAD C.P.NO.55/04 OF J.F.M.C.-II, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER : 3RD ACCUSED: ----------------------------- REMANAN, CHITRA BHAVAN, PALODUVILA DESOM MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.S.MUMTAZ RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 934 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008 O R D E R In favour of the petitioner directions were issued by another Bench of this Court while disposing of a Crl.M.C. to quash the proceedings initiated against him. The said Bench had indulgently directed that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate on or before 15.9.2007, his bail application must be considered and appropriate orders passed granting him bail. That order was passed on 24.8.2007. 2. The petitioner did not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed. Long later, he went before the same Bench and prayed that the time fixed may be extended. But the learned Judge by order dt.23.1.2008 rejected the said prayer. 3. The petitioner has now come to this Court again with this application for anticipatory bail praying that he may now be granted anticipatory bail. Investigation is complete. Final report B.A.No. 934 of 2008 2 has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioner has failed to take advantage of the order, which was already granted to him. His prayer for extension of time has not been considered favourably. 4. It is for the petitioner now 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). 5. 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 B.A.No. 934 of 2008 3 the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R. BASANT) Judge tm