T P MOIDEENKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 4 in Crime No.14/2000 of Thenhipalam Police Station for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with section 149 IPC, seek anticipatory bail.

(2.) Consequent on the non-appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No.954/00 before JFCM, Parappanangadi, the case against them was split up and refiled as C.C.No.128/04. Non-bailable warrants of arrest are pending against the petitioners, who claim to have been employed in the Persian gulf.

(3.) According to the petitioners, the co-accused in C.C.No.954/00 as well as the accused in the counter case registered as C.C.No.950/00were acquitted. That is amatter which the petitioners can apprise the Magistrate concerned. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted to nullify the process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. There is no reason why the petitioners should not surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail. Accordingly, if the petitioners surrender before the Magistrate concerned and file an application for regular bail, within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of, preferably on the same date on which it is filed, after examining the explanation offered by the petitioners for their previous non-appearance and also after considering their contention that the co-accused in the verysame case as well as the accused in the counter case have been acquitted after trial. This application is disposed of as above.