IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1454 of 2008() ----------------------------- Cr.No.42/08 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- RAJAGOPALAN, S/O SANKARANARAYANAN V.T., MANGAUVIL HOUSE, PANAMBRAM, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1454 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. On a private complaint filed by her which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C by the learned Magistrate, a crime was registered. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The marriage took place on 08.05.1996. One child is born in the wedlock. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. Anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . 4. 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.1454 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. 5. 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]. 6. 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.1454 of 2008 3