IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2180 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN CC. 252 /2004 IN LP.65/2005 of J.M.F.C.,NADAPURAM CRIME NO.216/01 OF KUTTIYADI POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : ----------------- ABDUL AZEEZ C.K., S/O.CHELAKODAN HAMZA, AGED 33 YEARS, KODANKOTTU MEETHAL, OORATH, KUTTIYADI, KOZHIKODE-DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT-STATE ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP:BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 2180 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 1st accused in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.498A of the IPC. Investigation was complete. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken. The petitioner had entered appearance. But, in the course of trial, he was compelled to be away from India. He could not, therefore, continue to appear. The co-accused, who faced trial, have already been found not guilty and acquitted. The case against the petitioner has been split up and later transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate to secure his presence. The petitioner finds such processes chasing him. He apprehends imminent arrest. B.A. No. 2180 of 2008 -: 2 :- 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate to release him on bail when he appears before the learned Magistrate. 3. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary and another v. State of Bihar (AIR 2003 SC 4662), it is by now trite that powers under Sec.438 of the 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 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 B.A. No. 2180 of 2008 -: 3 :- learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioner's application for regular bail on merits in accordance with law and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 5. In the result, this application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks 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. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/