IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2242 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.17/08 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED 1 & 4 ------------------------- 1. BIJU LAWRENCE, AGED 30, BEENA DALE, SAKTHIKULANGARA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. BERNARD, AGED 32, BEENA DALE, SAKTHIKULANGARA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH SRI.M.R.SARIN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.2242 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 452 I.P.C. The alleged incident had taken place on 14.01.08. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and registered the Calendar Case. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in that crime. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor reports that the final report having already been filed and the court already having taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioner as C.C.605 of 2008, the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. 3. I find merit in that opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. 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 B.A.No.2242 of 2008 2 invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I do not find any such reasons in this case. 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 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]. 5. 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 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/- B.A.No.2242 of 2008 3