IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 691 of 2008() ---------------------------- CP.46/2007 of J.M.F.C.-II,TRIVANDRUM CRIME NO.71/02 OF POONTHURA POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/A2 ------------------------------ RAJESH, S/O. DEVARAJAN, TC 43/465(1), AMMU BHAVAN, SHANTHI GARDENS, KAMALESHWARAM WARD, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POONTHURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.691 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sections 498 A and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner was allegedly responsible for the murder of his wife. There is also an allegation that the petitioner was guilty of matrimonial cruelty against his wife. The principal co-accused is his brother. 2. The petitioner was not available for arrest at the crime stage. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioner was not available for arrest. The case against him was hence split up. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner, reckoning him as an absconding accused. Such processes are chasing the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His failure/omission to appear earlier before the Investigating Officer or the learned B.A.No.691 of 2008 2 Magistrate was not wilful or deliberate. He was employed abroad. He is now willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular 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 Section 438 and/or 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner. 4. 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]. 5. 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 B.A.No.691 of 2008 3 case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. 6. I need only mention that the petitioner's application for regular bail must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22]. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-