IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1418 of 2008() ----------------------------- SC.702/2005 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA CRIME NO.106/02 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: ----------------------------------------- DEEPU JOHN, S/O. JOHN, AGED 28 YEARS, MERCY NIVAS, KODUKULANJI MURI, ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINAINT: -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1418 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 ORDER The petitioner - 2nd accused, faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.308 of the IPC. The petitioner was arrested at the crime stage. He had appeared before the committal court. He was enlarged on bail. The case against him was committed to the Court of Session. 2. According to the petitioner, after the matter was committed to the Court of Session, he did not receive any notice to appear before the Assistant Sessions Court, Mavelikkara. Hence he was not able to appear. Reckoning him as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioners finds such processes chasing him. B.A. No. 1418 of 2008 -: 2 :- 3. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner 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, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate to release him on bail when he appears before the learned Magistrate. 3. 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 issued by a court in a pending 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. 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 B.A. No. 1418 of 2008 -: 3 :- learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioner's application 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). 5. In the result, this application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks 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. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge B.A. No. 1418 of 2008 -: 4 :-