IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1034 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.5/2008 of SESSIONS DIVISION, WAYANAD, KALPETTA CC.458/2006 of J.M.F.C.-II, MANANTHAVADY CRIME NO.67/2004 OF THIRUNELLY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER ------------- C.VALSAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI 37 YEARS, INTERIAL DESIGNER AND ART DIRECTOR WORKING AT SHOBA DEVELPERS, BANGALORE) CHADAYAMATH HOUSE, IDIKKARA,THAVIHAL AMSOM DESOM, P.O.,THALAPUZHA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.JOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE THIRUNELLY POLICE STATION 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1034 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage or thereafter. 2. According to the petitioner he has not received any notice or processes from the court. Unfortunately reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued by the learned Magistrate against him, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. But he apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is therefore prayed that directions under Section 438 and/or 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner. 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 B.A.No.1034 of 2008 2 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. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor fairly points out that Crime number shown as 67 of 2004 in the cause title is not B.A.No.1034 of 2008 3 correct and the correct crime number is Crime 69 of 2004 of Thiruvalla Police Station. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-