IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 342 of 2008() ---------------------------- CC.98/2005 of J.M.F.C.,MAVELIKKARA CRIME NO.216/08 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ---------------------------------------- SHANMUGHAN, S/O. CHINNASWAMY, NO.23, GANDHI NAGAR COLONY, CHERIYAMPATTY PANCHAYATH, PALLUTHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 342 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. He faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.420 and 468 of the IPC. Investigation is complete. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken. The petitioner did not enter appearance. Thereupon, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. He is a person hailing from Tamil Nadu. He had no information or knowledge about the proceedings before court. The petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The B.A. No. 342 OF 2008 -: 2 :- 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, 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 B.A. No. 342 OF 2008 -: 3 :- 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. 5. The petitioner further apprehends that he may be compelled to remain in custody if the learned Magistrate were to insist on production of local sureties. I need only mention that there can be no rigid insistence. If the sureties produced are solvent and acceptable, the petitioner is entitled to request the court to release him on the security of those sureties. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is, in the alternative, willing to offer cash security. He must make those submissions before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate must consider those submissions and pass appropriate orders. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge