IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2023 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 1008/07 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.1 ----------------------------- ANIL JEROME, S/O.JEROME GEORGE INDRAPRASTHA, VIDYASALA NAGAR-20 ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 2023 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. He faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. The marriage took place on 19.5.2002. The spouses are blessed with two children. Crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate and forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioner was employed abroad and could not therefore appear before the learned Magistrate earlier. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner his absence was not willful. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate. But he B.A.No. 2023 of 2008 2 apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is in these circumstances prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to release the petitioner on bail on the date of surrender itself. 3. It is trite after the decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (AIR 2003 SC 4662) that powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be invoked even in favour of a petitioner, who apprehends arrest in the pending case on the strength of a non-bailable warrant issued by the court. Even that is not by itself sufficient to justify the invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I am unable to find any compelling reasons which would justify invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. It is certainly 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 application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he B.A.No. 2023 of 2008 3 surrenders before the learned Magistrate, 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 by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. 6. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm