IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 673 of 2008() ---------------------------- CP.141/2007 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 : ----------------- SHOBY, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, AGED 30 YEARS, MULLASSERY HOUSE, KODUNGA, VELLIKULANGARA P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 673 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.395 of the IPC. The petitioner, it is submitted, was enlarged on bail at the crime stage. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken and committal proceedings was registered before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner could not thereafter appear as he was not available in India and was abroad in connection with his employment. The case against the petitioner was split up and the case against the co- accused was committed to the Court of Session. The co- accused were tried. They have been found not guilty and acquitted, it is submitted. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, proceedings against him have been split B.A. No. 673 OF 2008 -: 2 :- up and is continuing. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. Such processes are chasing the petitioner now. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. 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 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 B.A. No. 673 OF 2008 -: 3 :- 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. 5. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes an interesting request. He prays that his case may be disposed of expeditiously. Obviously, warrant of arrest has been issued due to non-appearance of the petitioner. I need only observe that the petitioner can make the request before the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge for expeditious disposal. That request must be considered favourably and appropriate action taken. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge B.A. No. 673 OF 2008 -: 4 :-