IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 240 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 500/06 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/A2, 5 AND 6 ---------------------------- 1. SURENDRAN PILLAI,AGED 46 YEARS S/O. VASUDEVAN PILLAI, PUTHENPURAKKAL, VAZHUVADI, THAZHAKKARA,MAVELIKKARA TALUK (A2) 2. HARIDAS, AGED 44 YEARS,S/O.RAGHAVA PANIKKAR, EVOORETHU, VAZHUVADI, THAZHAKKARA,MAVELIKKARA TALUK (A5) 3. AJAYAKUMAR,AGED 39 YEARS S/O. CHANDRAN PILLAI,VARIKKOLIL VADAKKATHIL,VAZHUVADI, THAZHAKKARA,MAVELIKKARA TALUK (A6) BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 240 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 2, 5 and 6. They face indictment in a prosecution, inter alia, under Section 307 I.P.C. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioners have not been arrested at the crime stage. Summons has been issued. The petitioners apprehend that when they surrender before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate may not consider their applications for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. They have hence come to this court with this application for anticipatory bail. 2. It is certainly for the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which they could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the B.A.No. 240 of 2008 2 learned Magistrate would not consider the applications for bail to be filed by the petitioners when they surrender before the learned Magistrate, 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 by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 3. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. Needless to say, the petitioners' applications for bail must be considered by the learned Magistrate in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22). The learned Magistrate has advisedly after applying his mind chosen to issue summons only and not warrant against the petitioners in the committal proceedings. The learned counsel submits B.A.No. 240 of 2008 3 that the matter has been settled between the parties and the said fact has been reported to the learned Magistrate by the co-accused. I need only mention that the learned Magistrate must consider their applications in the light of the totality of circumstances in this case. (R. BASANT) Judge tm