IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1983 of 2008() ----------------------------- [CRIME NO.114/2005 OF IRITTY POLICE STATION] : PETITIONER --------------------------- PRADEESH KUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT USHAS, MEETHALA PUNNADU, P.O.PUNANDU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE C.I. OF POLICE, MATTANNOOR, KANNUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.1983 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner apprehends arrest as the sixth accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Section 395 read with 149 I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioner has not been arrested so far. Reckoning him as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner finds such processes chasing him. He apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But he apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. He, therefore, prays that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail when he appears and applies for bail. 3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate, the B.A.No.1983/08 2 circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have been issued in Alice George vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339]. 4. In the result, this bail application is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously. 5. The petitioner has a further contention that he is not the sixth accused who is arrayed as an accused in the case. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be entitled to raise that contention also at the appropriate stage. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.1983/08 3 B.A.No.1983/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007