IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1518 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.17/08 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED 2 & 3 ----------------- 1. BEENA JOY, AGED 35,D/O.LAWRENCE BEENA DALE, SAKTHIKULANGARA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. SEEMA BERNARD, AGED 28 W/O. BERNARD, BEENA DALE, SAKTHIKULANGARA P.O.,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN PANICKER SRI.M.R.SASITH PANICKER RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1518 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners - both women, are accused 2 and 3 in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 452 and 325 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 14.01.08. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor after taking instructions submits that the investigation is already complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioners are not now required to be arrested by the Investigating Officer. The petitioners may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [A.I.R 2003 S.C 4662], it is well settled that powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be invoked even in favour of an 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.1518 of 2008 2 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 such application 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 in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and apply 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 and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- B.A.No.1518 of 2008 3