IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7904 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.246/05 OF VILAPPILSALA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED --------------------------------------- BINU KUMAR, S/O JUSTUS, SARADA NILAYAM, KADUKKAMOOLA, URIYAKKODU P.O., KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VILAPPILSALA POLICE STATION, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.NO. 7904 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.324 of the IPC and the provisions of the Arms Act. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioner has not been arrested so far. The petitioner apprehends arrest at any moment in execution of the coercive processes issued by the court. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that directions under Sec.438 and/or Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be issued in favour of the petitioner. 2. 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 B.A.NO. 7904 OF 2007 -: 2 :- 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. 3. 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 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). 4. 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 B.A.NO. 7904 OF 2007 -: 3 :- 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. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge