IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1031 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMC NO.101/2008 OF SESSIONS COURT MANJERI CRIME NO.43/2008 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER --------------- UNNENKUTTY, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 22 YEARS KOLLIYATH HOUSE, PULAMANTHOLE P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR PERINTHALMANNA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1031 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered for the offences punishable under Section 353 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 30.12.07. The petitioner has not been arrested in the course of investigation. He apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and incarceration pending investigation. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is now complete. The police do not want to arrest the petitioner on their own now. As the final report has already been filed, it is for the petitioner to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the usual and normal course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. I am satisfied that final report having been filed, it is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. B.A.No.1031 of 2008 2 5. 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 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. 6. 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]. 7. 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 B.A.No.1031 of 2008 3 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/-