SREEJITH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces the indictment in a prosecution, inter alia, under S.326 read with S.34 of the IPC. He was not arrested in the course of investigation. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Summons has been issued to the petitioner under S.204 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Having received only a summons, one would have expected that the petitioner should confidently appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail, the learned Magistrate having already exercised his discretion under S.204 of the Cr.P.C. to issue a summons and not warrant. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a very strange practice exists in that court and that even if an accused appears in obedience to a summons, there is possibility of the petitioner being remanded to custody.

(3.) That practice is indeed strange. I must assume that the learned Magistrate has considered the materials available and has chosen to exercise the discretion under S.204 of the Cr.P.C. to issue only a summons and not a warrant. When an accused, on receipt of such summons, appears before the learned Magistrate, in the normal course unless compelling reasons are there, such indictee must be released on bail. Such a healthy practice must prevail in all courts. Except on very compelling and extraordinary reasons, this practice should not be deviated from also.