IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2014 of 2008() ----------------------------- SC.446/2005 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM CRIME 77/04 OF PUTHENVELIKKARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED --------------------------------------- VIJAYAN, S/O.KUNJANDI, PALLIYAMBIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHELAKKA KARA, KUNNUKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, PUTHENVELIKKARA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 2014 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 3rd accused. He, along with the co-accused, faces indictment for offences punishable, inter alia, under section 307 IPC. The petitioner had appeared before the committal court. The case was committed to the court of sessions. Sessions case was numbered but the petitioner could not appear before the learned Sessions Judge. Consequently, non-bailable warrant has been issued for the arrest of the petitioner. Petitioner finds such process chasing him now. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. He had gone abroad for the purpose of employment. He was not served with any notice from the Sessions court. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Sessions Judge. Appropriate directions under Section 438 or 482 BA.2014/08 : 2 : Cr.P.C. may be issued in favour of the petitioner, it is prayed. 3. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary and another Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 2003 SC 4662], it is now trite that powers under section 438 Cr.P.C. can be invoked in favour of a person who apprehends arrest in execution of a non-bailable warrant issued by a court in a pending proceedings. But even for that, sufficient and satisfactory reasons must be shown to exist. I am not persuaded, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that any such reasons exist. 4. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Sessions Judge and explain to the learned Sessions Judge, the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Sessions Judge. I find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned Sessions Judge would not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have been issued BA.2014/08 : 3 : in Alice George Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003 (1) KLT 339]. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Sessions Judge and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Sessions Judge must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sessions case against the co-accused stands listed for trial on 4.4.08. The petitioner shall be at liberty to request the learned Sessions Judge to ensure that the trial against him also proceeds along with the co-accused. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge immediately. 7. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks