IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 558 of 2008() ---------------------------- CC.511/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III),N.PARAVUR .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. KUTTAN,S/O. KANNAN, PUTHENVEETTIL MANAKKAPARAMBU, VANIYAKKADU,KOTTUVALLY NORTH PARAVUR. 2. SASI, S/O.SUBRAN,MANAKKAPARAMBU VEETTIL VANIYAKKADU,KOTTUVALLY NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.G.PADMARAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR,VARAPPUZHA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 558 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution in which it is alleged that they have committed offences punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioners were enlarged on bail at the crime stage itself. After the case was committed to the Court of Session, it was posted to 22/1/08. The petitioners were actually present before court, it is submitted. But, unfortunately, on account of some error regarding the number of the case, the petitioners could not appear before the learned Judge and claim bail when the case was called. Consequently, reckoning the petitioners as unauthorisedly absent, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioners. They find such warrants of arrest issued by the learned Judge chasing them. B.A. No. 558 OF 2008 -: 2 :- 2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely innocent. Their absence to appear and claim bail on 22/1/08 was on account of reasons beyond their control. The petitioners, in these circumstances, want to surrender before the learned Judge and seek regular bail. The petitioners apprehend that their applications for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Judge on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners have come to this Court for a direction to the learned Judge to release them on bail when they appear before the learned Judge. 3. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned Judge and explain to the learned Judge the circumstances under which they could not earlier appear before the learned Judge. I have no reason to assume that the learned Judge would not consider the petitioners' applications 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 petitioners surrender before the B.A. No. 558 OF 2008 -: 3 :- learned Judge and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Judge must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. 5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be a direction that the warrants of arrest issued by the learned Judge on 22/1/08 shall not be executed till 1/2/2008. On or before that date the petitioners must surrender and seek regular bail. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge