IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4586 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.456/08 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------- SOBHI GEORGE AGED 40 YEARS, S/O KORA GEORGE KAKKARATH HOUSE, NELLIMATTOM KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SRI. K.SIJU RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM THROUGH PUBLIC POROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4586 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. This is the second application for anticipatory bail. The alleged offence is under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. In connection with the same, a complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was also filed and it was also taken on file. Two cases are pending before the Magistrate's Courts. 3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the amount could not be paid only because of financial stringency and he submitted that he is prepared to pay the amount. Considering the said submission, an earlier anticipatory bail was allowed as per order dated 19.3.2008 in B.A.No.1644 of 2008. Time limit was fixed for making the deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- before the court. As per the said order, if the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the order will stand revoked and the police will be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law. The petitioner could not make payment of the amount within the time, BA.NO.4586/08 2 i.e., within 26.6.2008. But, on the very next day he filed an application before this Court to extend the time for depositing the amount offering to pay the amount immediately. The said petition was dismissed, since the anticipatory bail order stood revoked on the failure to deposit the amount on or before 26.6.2008, by a self- working direction. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that non bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner, since he has not deposited the amount and since the application for extension of time was dismissed by this Court. But the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount and there was only one day's delay in not offering the amount for deposit. Therefore, he has filed the anticipatory bail application again. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the remedy is not by filing an anticipatory bail application again. But, the petitioner could not avail of the benefit under the order passed by another Bench of this Court in B.A.No.1644 of 2008 only because he could not raise the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- just one day earlier. For this, technically, he could not get himself released on bail and he may also be forced to undergo detention, only for this one day's delay, it is submitted. But on the same set of facts, especially since warrant BA.NO.4586/08 3 has been issued by the trial court and the application for extension of time has already been dismissed, it may not be proper on my part now to entertain this petition for anticipatory bail, for legal reasons and on the ground of propriety. 6. However, I find it necessary to make certain observations in the peculiar facts of this case, to protect interest of justice. So, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and files an application for regular bail, learned Magistrate may consider all the facts discussed in this order into consideration especially the delay of just one day in raising Rs.3 lakhs and the peculiar circumstances under which the earlier anticipatory bail order got itself revoked. Since he was ready with the money on the very next day, i.e., on 27.6.2008, he had filed an application expressing his willingness to deposit the amount and seeking extension of time, which could not be allowed for solid reasons. 7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the application, if any, filed and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. I make it clear that there will be no bar for the learned Magistrate to receive the amount which the petitioner offers to deposit in court, in compliance with the earlier direction contained in B.A.No.1644 of BA.NO.4586/08 4 2008. It is also to be mentioned in this context that anticipatory bail order in B.A.No.1644 of 2008 was passed by this Court and the amount was fixed and the petition was allowed only after hearing the de facto complainant also. This petition is disposed of accordingly. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.