ANTONY JOSE PANJIKKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.141 of 2007 and the 2nd accused in C.C.386 of 2002, both pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, North Paravur.In one case, he facesallegations, interalia,underSection379 I.P.C,whereasin the other, he faces allegations, inter alia, under Section 353 read with 34 I.P.C.

(2.) The petitioner is a person employed abroad.He finds that warrants of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate to procure his presence are chasing him. The petitioner wasemployedabroad and there was no wilful default on his part in appearing before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner is now willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate, but he apprehends that in view of his prior conduct of not appearing before the learned Magistrate, his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. He therefore prays that a direction may be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C to the learned Magistrate to release him 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. The learned Magistrate must consider such application for bailon merits,in accordance with lawand expeditiously. Ihave no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider such application on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued inAlice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339].