RATHEESH J Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused and they face allegations, inter alia, under Section 308 I.P.C. They have come to this court seeking anticipatory bail and another Bench of this Court by order dt.18.12.2006 had granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. The petitioners were directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail within a period of one month.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have appeared before the learned Magistrate on 28.12.2006 to seek regular bail. The learned Magistrate, entertaining an incorrect impression that he cannot grant bail under any circumstance as the offence is one triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, returned the applications for bail without taking any action. The petitioners have hence come to this Court again with a prayer to make it clear that the learned Magistrate shall be at liberty to grant bail to the petitioners when they surrender and seek regular bail.

(3.) I am at a loss to understand the course followed by the learned Magistrate. It is trite and it has been repeated many times that the mere fact that the offence is triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions does not deprive the learned Magistrate of jurisdictional competence to consider an application for bail. The learned Magistrate will certainly take into account the fact that in an application for anticipatory bail the superior court has come to the conclusion that such petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners rightly points out that the decision in Jose George v. State of Kerala (2006 (2) KLT 188) is also relevant on this aspect.