JOSE GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in L.P. 32 of 2004 which arises from C.C. 584 of 2005 on the file of JFCM, Koothuparamba has filed this Crl. M.C. The petitioner sought for pre-arrest bail by filing B.A.548 of 2006. This court, as per order dated 2.2.2006, granted pre-arrest bail. According to the petitioner, when he appeared before the court, he was told that since there is no specific direction issued to the Magistrate, he will be remanded and the bail application filed was returned. Hence this Crl.M.C for a direction to the JFCM, Koothuparamba to release the petitioner on bail in connection with L.P. 32 of 2004 in C.C.584 of 2005.

(2.) Heard both sides. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that it is absolutely unnecessary to issue any such directions. It is true that there is no specific direction to the Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail. If the Magistrate is taking a view that such directions are to be issued by this court in every bail applications, the same is illegal. When this court grants the relief of pre-arrest bail, though there is no specific direction to the Magistrate, the message is clear that this court is of the view that the person to whom the relief of pre-arrest bail is granted is not to be remanded to judicial custody. But considering the averments in the Crl.M.C, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given one month's time to appear before the court and seek regular bail. If in the meanwhile he is arrested in pursuance of the non bailable warrant issued from L.P.32 of 2004 in C.C.584 of 2000 on the file of JFCM, Koothuparamba, the police officer arresting the petitioner shall release him on bail on condition that he executes a bond for Rs. 25,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the police officer arresting him. It is a case without saying that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief in case he surrenders before the Magistrate also.