IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1633 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN LP 183/2001 IN CC.1037/1997 of ADDL.C.J.M., ERNAKULAM CRIME NO.444/97 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ----------------- CHANDRALAL, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 41 YEARS, PUTHENPARAMBU, PARAPOOR P.O., PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE S.H.O., HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, TRIPUNITHURA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No.1633 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.304A of the IPC. The crime was registered as early as in 1997. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance was taken. The petitioner, who was enlarged on bail at the crime stage, did not appear before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Consequently, the case has been transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases. Coercive processes have been initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner now apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner, in these B.A. No.1633 of 2008 -: 2 :- 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 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. 2. 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 B.A. No.1633 of 2008 -: 3 :- 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). 4. 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. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge