IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 181 of 2008() ---------------------------- CP.67/2007 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG CRIME NO.278/05 OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED: ------------------------- N.M.NAUFAL, S/O.ABDULKHADER, KHADIJA MANZIL, THANKKADAPPURAM, NILESHWAR. BY ADV. SRI.M.THAMBAN SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.181 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 308 and 324 r/w 149 I.P.C. The petitioner was not arrested by the investigator. In the final report filed, he was shown as an absconding accused. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioner has not so far entered appearance. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. 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 under 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. B.A.No.181 of 2008 2 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. Needless to say that the application must be considered in the light of Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22]. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-