IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 405 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.196/07 OF MALA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1TO 6 ---------------------------------------------- 1. VENU,S/O. KANNAN,41 YEARS, THIRUTHY HOUSE,VALIYAPARAMBU DESOM KURUVILASSERY VILLAGE,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MANI,S/O.KAVALAN,40 YEARS, KAINATTUTHARA HOUSE,THIRUMUKKULAM VILLAGE THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. OMANA,W/O.MANI 38YEARS,KAINATTUTHARA HOUSE, THIRUMUKKULAM VILLAGE THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. SUBRAMANIAN,S/O.KANNAN,46 YEARS THIRUTHY HOUSE,VALIYAPARAMBU HOUSE KURUVILASSERY VILLAGE,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. SULOCHANA,W/O.SUBRAMANIAN 37 YEARS,THIRUTHY HOUSE,VALIYAPARAMBU HOUSE KURUVILASSERY VILLAGE,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. BHASKARAN,S/O.KANNAN 48 YEARS,THIRUTHY HOUSE,VALIYAPARAMBU HOUSE KURUVILASSERY VILLAGE,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI.GIKKU JACOB. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.NO. 405 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under Sec.498A of the IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is now learnt that the final report has already been filed and cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has issued summons to the accused persons, it is submitted. It is prayed that directions under Sec.438 and/or Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be issued in favour of the petitioner. 2. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary and another v. State of Bihar (AIR 2003 SC 4662), it is by now trite that powers under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked in favour of a person who apprehends arrest in execution of a non-bailable warrant of arrest issued by a court in a pending B.A.NO. 405 OF 2008 -: 2 :- proceedings. But even for that, sufficient and satisfactory reasons must be shown to exist. I am not persuaded, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that any such reasons exist. Admittedly only summons has been issued and there is no warrant of arrest chasing the petitioner. 3. 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 the petitioners' applications for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. In the result, this application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to B.A.NO. 405 OF 2008 -: 3 :- 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. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge