IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 29TH APRIL 2008 / 9TH VAISAKHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2448 of 2008 -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 148/2008 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1,2 & 4: ------------------------------------------------ 1. SARATH,AGED 22 YEARS,S/O. CHANDRAN NAIR SARATH BHAVANAM, PERINGANADU THEKKUM MURI, ADOOR TALUK. 2. PRADEEP, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. PALANI ACHARI, DEVI VILASOM VEEDU CHERUPUNJA MURI,PERINGANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK 3. ARUN,AGED 23 YEARS,S/O.THANKAPPAN, CHAANDA VILASOM, KARUVATTA MURI, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.2448 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of April 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1,2 and 4. They face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Sections 452 and 308 I.P.C. The petitioners are activists of the R.S.S. Political animosity is the alleged motive. The de facto complainant is the local committee Secretary of the C.P.M. According to the petitioner, totally false allegations have been raised without any reasonable justification. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is already complete and final report has already been filed. There are absolutely no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. After the decision in In Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [AIR 2003 SC 4662] it is well settled that powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be invoked even in favour of the 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 invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I do not find any such reasons in this case. B.A.No.2448/08 2 3. 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 find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate 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]. 4. In the result, this bail application is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself in the light of Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1)KLT 22]). (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.2448/08 3 B.A.No.2448/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007