IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1358 of 2008() ----------------------------- CP.100/2007 of J.M.F.C.,KASARAGOD CRIME NO.248/06 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------- PRASHANTH KUMAR,S/O.SHANKARA PATALI, AYYAPPA NAGAR, KELUGUDEE, KUDLU VILLAGE KASARAGODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KASARAGODE POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.1358 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution inter alia under Section 308 read with 149 I.P.C. The petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has also been taken. The petitioner was not available for trial. The case against him has been split up. The case against the other accused has been ended in acquittal. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner reckoning him as an absconding accused. The petitioner finds such processes chasing him. 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 B.A.No.1358/08 2 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 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]. B.A.No.1358/08 3 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.1358/08 4 B.A.No.1358/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007