IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2140 of 2008() ----------------------------- CR.NO.139/2006 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.4,12,15,20,22,24 & 25 ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. IBRAHIM, S/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 40 YEARS, NEAR MUNSIFF COURT, TALIPARAMBA, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. M.K.P.SHAMEER, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 27 YEARS, MAHTTUVAYAL, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. JABBAR, S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 38 YEARS, TALIPARAMBA, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. MUSTAFA, S/O.HAMZA, AGED 27 YEARS, KUPPAM, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. ISMAIL, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 28 YEARS, MUKKOLA, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. RASHEED, S/O.ALI, AGED 30 YEARS, KUTTUKKAN SHAPPUKARAN HOUSE, MANNA, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. MUHAMMED RAFEEQUE, S/O.ABDU, AGED 36 YEARS, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT(CRIME NO.139/06 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT) REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.2140 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Sections 380 and 436 read with 149 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 24/2/2006. It was a clash between I.U.M.L and C.P.M workers. The investigation has already completed. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been initiated against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has received summons and earlier appeared through counsel and applied for time. Rejecting that, warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioners are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But they apprehend that their application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance B.A.No.2140/08 2 with law and expeditiously. They, therefore, pray that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioners on bail when they appear and apply for bail. 3. In Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [AIR 2003 SC 4662] it is well settled that powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be invoked even in favour of the 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 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 petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate, the circumstances under which they could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioners on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have been issued in Alice George vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339]. B.A.No.2140/08 3 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. 6. Needless to say, the application must be considered in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1) KLT 22]). (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.2140/08 4 B.A.No.2140/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007