IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2449 of 2008() ----------------------------- CP.94/2007 of J.M.F.C.,THIRUVALLA CR.NO.51/06 OF THIRUVALLA EXCISE RANGE. .................... PETITIONER --------------------------- VIJAYAN, MADATHIL PARAMBIL VEEDU KADAPRA, PARUMALA P.O., THIRUVALLA BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM BY P.P. SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 2449 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage or thereafter. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings has been registered. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes. 2. According to the petitioner, he 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 B.A. No. 2449 of 2008 -: 2 :- 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 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 B.A. No. 2449 of 2008 -: 3 :- 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. Needless to say, the application for bail will have to be considered in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22). (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/