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. 1392 of 2008() ----------------------------- CP.81/2007 of J.M.F.C.,MAVELIKKARA CR.NO.316/05 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS: ACCUSED NOS. 2 & 3 ----------------------------------- 1. SAJI, S/O.PURUSHAN, MUPPATHIL HOUSE KANICHANELLOOR MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE. 2. SAJAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN, MARAMGATTU VEEDU KANICHANELLOOR MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKAA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 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. 1392 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face indictment as accused 2 and 3 for offences punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioners were not arrested at the crime stage or thereafter. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioners have been shown as the absconding accused in the charge sheet. Consequently, coercive processes have been initiated against the petitioners in the committal proceedings. The petitioners find such processes chasing them. 2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. B.A. No. 1392 of 2008 -: 2 :- The petitioners, in these circumstances, want to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioners apprehend that their applications 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 petitioners have come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate to release them on bail when they appear 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 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 have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioners' applications for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law B.A. No. 1392 of 2008 -: 3 :- 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 petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek 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. Needless to say, the application for bail will have to be considered in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22). Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge B.A. No. 1392 of 2008 -: 4 :-