IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1623 of 2008() ----------------------------- C.C.3426/07 OF J.F.C.M, ALUVA : PETITIONER: (3RD ACCUSED): ------------------------------------------- LAIJU VARGHESE, VALIYATH HOUSE NO.16, CHANDANA GARDEN, J.P.LANE, KODAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH PANICKER RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1623 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the brother of the husband of the complainant/wife. Cognizance has been taken. Calendar Case has been registered by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. He apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. The petitioner is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail, but coercive processes have been issued by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner, in these circumstances, has come to this Court seeking directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 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 satisfactory reasons must be shown to exist to justify the B.A.No.1623 of 2008 2 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.1623 of 2008 3