IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 25 of 2008() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 312/2007 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION. ...... PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED --------------------- C.L.SANTHOSH, S/O. LAKSHMANAN, AGED 34 YEARS, GOLDSMITH, KANIYALIL HOUSE, KARYAMBALAM, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------- STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, THALIPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.NO. 25 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.395 read with Sec.149 of the IPC. 2. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Committal proceedings has been registered before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the processes issued by the court. 3. 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 apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance B.A.NO. 25 OF 2008 -: 2 :- with law and expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that directions under Sec.438 and/or Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be issued in favour of the petitioner. 4. 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. 5. 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 directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). B.A.NO. 25 OF 2008 -: 3 :- 6. 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. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge