IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2183 of 2008() ----------------------------- CC.356/2007 of C.J.M.,THODUPUZHA CRIME NO.722/06 OF THE THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS: ----------------- 1. K.U.NAZAR, AGED 36, S/O.C.K.UMMER KIZHEKKELCHOZHAKUNNEL, PERUMBILLICHIRA P.O. THODUPUZHA. 2. C.K. UMMER, AGED 57, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU KIZHEKKELCHOZHAKUNNEL, PERUMBILLICHIRA P.O. THODUPUZHA. 3. AZIYA, AGED 54, W/O.C.K.UMMER KIZHEKKELCHOZHAKUNNEL, PERUMBILLICHIRA P.O. THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.HASSAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY P.P. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 2183 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under Sec.498A read with Sec.34 of the IPC. It is submitted that the petitioners had entered appearance before the learned Magistrate and were enlarged on bail. The disputes between the spouses have now been settled and certain terms are to be complied with. The petitioners could not appear before the learned Magistrate on the date specified for reporting final settlement. Applications were filed on their behalf. But the learned Magistrate rejected the same and issued coercive processes against the petitioners. The petitioners find such processes chasing them. 2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely innocent. They are making bona fide attempt to settle the B.A. No. 2183 of 2008 -: 2 :- matter. The petitioners, in these circumstances, want to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioners apprehend that their applications 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 petitioners have come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate to release them on bail when they appear before the learned Magistrate. 3. 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 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 have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioners' applications for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law B.A. No. 2183 of 2008 -: 3 :- 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). 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek 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) Nan/