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. 275 of 2008() ---------------------------- CP.111/2007 of J.M.F.C.,TALIPARAMBA CRIME 155/06 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.3,4,7,8,11 & 13: -------------------------------------------- 1. P.UMMER, S/O.SOOPY, AGED 41 YEARS, KOOVERI AMSOM, CHAPPARAPPADAVU DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. P.C.P.MAHROOF, S/O.ALI HAJI, AGED 23, KOOVERI AMSOM, CHAPPARAPPADAVU DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. K.P.C.ISMAIL, S/O.ALI HAJI, AGED 21, KOOVERI AMSOM, CHAPPARAPPADAVU DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. MUHAMMED, S/O. ADAM, AGED 26 YEARS, KOOVERI AMSOM, CHAPPARAPPADAVU DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. ABDUL JABBAR, S/O.YUSUF HAJI, AGED 38, KEERANTAKATH HOUSE, KOOVERI AMSOM CHAPPARAPPADAVU DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DT 6. CHAPPAN ABDULLA, S/O.MAMMU, AGED 26, KOOVERI AMSOM CHAPPARAPPADAVU DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DIST. (CRIME NO. 155/06 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DIST.) REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.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. 275 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused Nos.3, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 13 in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 436 read with 149 IPC. The incident allegedly arose from a political dispute between persons belonging to two different political groups. Investigation is complete. Final report has been filed. Committal proceedings has been registered. Petitioners received summons to appear. They appeared through counsel and applied for time. Their applications were dismissed. Warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioners. Petitioners find such warrants chasing them now. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The petitioners are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek BA.275/08 : 2 : 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. 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 petition is dismissed but with the BA.275/08 : 3 : 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. 5. Needless to say, the learned Magistrate must consider the petitioners' application for bail in the light of the decision reported in Sukumari Vs. State of Kerala [2001 (1) KLT 22]. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks