IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2066 of 2008() ----------------------------- CP.237/2007 of J.M.F.C.-II,KOTTARAKKARA CRIME NO.216/06 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- ANANDAN, S/O.KUNJURAMAN, MAMOOTTIL VEEDU, PALLIKKUNNUPURAM, MUTTARA MURI, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.2066 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioner has not been arrested in the course of investigation. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate after registering the committal proceedings. Such processes are chasing the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. He is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for 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. It is therefore prayed that directions under Section 438 and/or 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner. 3. 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 B.A.No.2066 of 2008 2 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 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]. 5. 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/- B.A.No.2066 of 2008 3