IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 577 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 612/07 OF MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/A2 --------------------------- A.SANKARAN, S/O V.ADIVARAHAM PILLAI, 14/1775A, ANUGRAHA, R.K.PILLAI ROAD, KARUVELIPADY, COCHIN-5. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SMT.S.LAKSHMY RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION, KODUNGALLUR, PIN-680685. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-18. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 577 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner has subsequently been arrayed as the second accused in a crime registered under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C. The first accused is the one, who is alleged to have principally committed the offence. The petitioner is the Manager of the Canara Bank. The first accused had allegedly produced forged documents before the petitioner and the same were accepted by the petitioner. The first accused has already been granted bail. The liability to the bank has been discharged in full. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed, submits the learned Prosecutor. 2. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the petitioner can be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail, final report having already filed and cognizance having already taken by the learned Magistrate. B.A.No. 577 of 2008 2 3. It is trite after the decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (AIR 2003 SC 4662) that powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be invoked even in favour of a petitioner, who apprehends arrest in the pending case on the strength of a non-bailable warrant issued by the court. Even that is not by itself sufficient to justify the invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I am unable to find any compelling reasons which would justify invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. It is certainly 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 application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he surrenders before the learned Magistrate, on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). B.A.No. 577 of 2008 3 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R. BASANT) Judge tm