IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 72 of 2008() --------------------------- CC.557/2005 of J.M.F.C.-II,KOTTARAKKARA CRIME NO.174/1995 OF EZHUKONE POLICE STATION .................... : APPLICANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- VERGISON GEORGE, S/O GEORGE, VARGESA BHAVAN, ANDOOR MURI, VALAKOM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL) SRI.P.V.SREENIJIN SMT.K.B.SONY SRI.PRASUN.S. RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.72 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. The crime was registered in 1995. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken. The petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage. He did not appear before the learned Magistrate after cognizance was taken. Co-accused have already been tried and acquitted, it is submitted. The case against the petitioner has been split up. The same is now pending as C.C.557 of 2005. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. 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 B.A.No.72 of 2008 2 under Section 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.72 of 2008 3