IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7879 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.292/2002 OF PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED --------------------------------------- P.K.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O KUNNJAYYAPPAN, AGED 40 YEARS, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KARANCHIRA DESOM, KATTOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENCRUZ, PUTHENCRUZ NEAR KOLLENCHERRY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.7879 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable inter alia under Section 468 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he opened an account with the bank and obtained a cheque leaf. That cheque leaf was forged by him to make it appear that it is issued to another account holder - the Kerala State Financial Enterprises. The said cheque was presented by him through the account of the first accused. The same was discounted and money was collected by the first accused. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed on 28/9/2007 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery. The petitioner is arrayed as the second accused. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. There are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the B.A.No.7879/07 2 extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. I have considered all the relevant inputs. After the decision 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. 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 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]. B.A.No.7879/07 3 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed bSut 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. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.7879/07 4 B.A.No.7879/07 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007