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. 2325 of 2008() ----------------------------- LP.16/2006 of SUB COURT, VADAKARA CRIME 238/00 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- TTK.BASHEER, THUMBOLI THAZHE KUNIYIL HOUSE, THUNERI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPD. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE 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. 2325 OF 2008 E ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under section 307 IPC. The alleged incident took place in 2000. The petitioner was not available for trial. The co- accused was tried, found guilty and convicted only under section 332 IPC, it is submitted. As the petitioner was not available, the case against him was split up and transferred to the list of Long Pending cases. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the trial against the co-accused, there are certain observations which persuaded him to believe that the case against him shall not be proceeded with. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes were issued against him. The petitioner now apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes. BA.2325/08 : 2 : 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Sessions Judge and seek regular bail. But he apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Sessions Judge on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. He, therefore, prays that directions under Section 438 or 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to the learned Sessions Judge to release the petitioner on bail when he appears and applies for bail. 3. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary and another Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 2003 SC 4662], it is now trite that powers under section 438 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 BA.2325/08 : 3 : exist. 4. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Sessions Judge and explain to the learned Sessions Judge, the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Sessions Judge. I find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned Sessions Judge would not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have been issued in Alice George Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003 (1) KLT 339]. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Sessions Judge and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Sessions Judge must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and BA.2325/08 : 4 : expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. 6. Needless to say the claim of the petitioner for bail has to be considered by the learned Sessions Judge in the light of the decision reported in Sukumari Vs. State of Kerala [2001 (1) KLT 22]. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks