IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 704 of 2008() ---------------------------- LP.51/2006 of J.M.F.C.-II,KOTTARAKKARA .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SHIHABUDEEN.M, S/O LATE MUHAMMED KASIM, ALUVILA VEED, NILAMEL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.ALTHAF RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 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 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No. 704 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. He faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498 A I.P.C. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Case has been registered. As the petitioner was not available for trial, the case against him has been transferred to the list of Long Pending cases. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of such processes. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence earler was not wilful or deliberate. He is employed abroad. He has now come back to his native place. He is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. But he 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 therefore prayed that directions under B.A.No. 704 of 2008 2 Section 438 and/or 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner. 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 such application 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 in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. 4. This bail application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies 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 and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- B.A.No. 704 of 2008 3