IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 2ND MAY 2008 / 12TH VAISAKHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2733 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CR. NO. 126/1996 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- SHAMSUDHEEN,S/O.KUNHALAN KUTTY, AGED 29 YEARS,PARAYIL HOUSE, KOTTOR VAYAL,SREEKANDAPURAM P.O., NEDIYENGA AMSOM,TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZER. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.2733 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of May 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Section 506(i) I.P.C. Calender case was registered in 2004. It was transferred to the list of long pending cases in 2005. Consequent to the non-availability of the petitioner, coercive processes have been issued by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But he apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. He, therefore, prays that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail when he appears and applies for bail. 3. In Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [AIR 2003 SC 4662] it is well settled that powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be invoked even in favour of the accused who apprehends arrest in execution of a non bailable warrant issued in a pending B.A.No.2733/08 2 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. 4. 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 find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate 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 in Alice George vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339]. 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.2733/08 3 B.A.No.2733/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007