IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 200 of 2008() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN LP 20/2006 IN CC.581/2002 of J.M.C. - I, PONNANI .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- ABDULLAKUTTY, S/O. CHEKKU, KAVUNGILE VALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.KAPPUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.200 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution inter alia under Section 304A I.P.C. The alleged incident took place in 2002. The petitioner was arrested and was enlarged on bail at the crime stage. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. But as the petitioner was employed abroad, he has not received notice of the proceedings and consequently he could not appear before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, reckoning the petitioner as absconding, has issued coercive processes against the petitioner. Such processes are now chasing the petitioner. The case against the petitioner which was registered initially as C.C.No.581/2002 has subsequently been transferred to the list of long pending cases. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. No notice or process or summons of court was ever served on the petitioner after the case was committed. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But he apprehends that his application for bail may not B.A.No.200/08 2 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 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 - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.200/08 3 B.A.No.200/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007