IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1536 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME 231/01 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 2 & 6 ---------------------------------------------- 1. E.P.PRABHAKARAN, S/O.GOPALAN NAMBIAR, AGED 34 YEARS, E.P.HOUSE, CHUZHILI AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. K.GANGADHARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS, KOLIYAD HOUSE, CHUZHALI AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.231/01 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT) REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 1536 OF 2008 D ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners face indictment as accused Nos.2 and 6 in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under section 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and section 427 read with 149 IPC. The crime was registered as early as in 2001. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings has been registered. Consequent to non-appearance of the petitioners, the case against them was transferred to the list of long pending cases. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioners. They find such processes chasing them. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. They were employed BA.1536/08 : 2 : abroad. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioners are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But they apprehend that their application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. They, therefore, pray that directions under Section 438 or 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioners on bail when they appear and apply for bail. 3. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary and another Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 2003 SC 4662], it is now trite that powers under section 438 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. BA.1536/08 : 3 : 4. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate, the circumstances under which they 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 petitioners 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]. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply 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. BA.1536/08 : 4 : 6. Needless to say the claim of the petitioners for bail has to be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits and appropriate orders shall be passed. The learned Magistrate must consider the application for bail in the light of the decision reported in Sukumari Vs. State of Kerala [2001 (1) KLT 22]. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks