IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 760 of 2008() ---------------------------- CC.256/2007 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO.422 OF 2007 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- JOSE THOMAS, S/O.LATE THOMAS, MEKKAT HOUSE, KANJIRAPPILLY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH SRI.BIJU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO. 422 OF 2007), ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.760 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution, inter alia, under Sections 420 and 467 I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Case is now pending before the learned Magistrate as a calendar case. 2. The petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage. He has been shown as absconding. Reckoning him as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner, in these circumstances, apprehends imminent arrest. 3. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. The allegations reveal only a civil dispute. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But he apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. The petitioner, in these circumstances, has come before this Court for issue of B.A.No.760 of 2008 2 appropriate directions under Section 438 and/482 Cr.P.C in their favour. 4. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [A.I.R 2003 S.C 4662], it is well settled that powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be invoked even in favour of an accused who apprehends arrest in execution of a non bailable warrant issued in a pending proceedings. But even for that, sufficient and satisfactory reasons must be shown to exist to justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I do not find any such reasons in this case. 5. 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. I have 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 in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. B.A.No.760 of 2008 3 6. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-