IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2262 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.454/07 OF CHERPPU POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 ------------------------------------------ 1. MAHESH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.SIVAN, CO-OPERATIVE COLLEGE, HOUSE NO-11, POLATYATHODU P.O., KOLLAM. 2. DINESH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.SIVAN, CO-OPERATIVE COLLEGE, HOUSE NO-11, POLATYATHODU P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.BALRAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.2262 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners face allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 420 I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. In these circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. 2. 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. 3. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the B.A.No.2262 of 2008 2 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]. 4. 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/-