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. 2658 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NUMBER NOT KNOWN PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- GIRI.V.V., KARUVELIPARAMBIL, S.R.M.ROAD, PACHALAM, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE 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. 2658 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. He faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. The marriage took place in 1991. The spouses are blessed with two children. Crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the Magistrate and referred by the Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioner has not been arrested so far. He apprehends imminent arrest. 2. It is trite after the decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (AIR 2003 SC 4662) that powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be invoked even in favour of a petitioner, who apprehends arrest in the pending case on the strength of a non- B.A.No. 2658 of 2008 2 bailable warrant issued by the court. Even that is not by itself sufficient to justify the invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I am unable to find any compelling reasons which would justify invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. It is certainly 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 the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he surrenders before the learned Magistrate, 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 by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe 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 B.A.No. 2658 of 2008 3 proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R. BASANT) Judge tm