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. 2693 of 2008() ----------------------------- LP.26/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II,NEYYATTINKARA CRIME NO.190/03 OF POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED: ------------------------- SHAJI, S/O.SUKUMARAN, AGED 24 YEARS, SHULAJA NIVAS, PULLUVALLI, UCHAKKADA, POZHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT STATE AND ITS OFFICERS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE CIRCLE, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION, POZHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB 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.2693 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 376 I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioner had entered appearance and was enlarged on bail, but later he did not appear before the learned Magistrate. The case has hence been transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases. Coercive processes have been issued against him. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. His absence was not wilful or deliberate. He is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner, in these circumstances, has come before this Court for issue of appropriate directions under Section 438 and/or 482 Cr.P.C in his favour. 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 B.A.No.2693 of 2008 2 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 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 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 appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- B.A.No.2693 of 2008 3