IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl.No. 2181 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.277/06 OF TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD) APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.2 : ------------------------------- KRISHNAN ALIAS KRISHNAPRASAD, S/O.V.K.MANON, KUNNATHU VEEDU, KOVILPAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 2181 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 2nd accused. He faces indictment in a prosecution alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under section 307 read with 34 IPC. The petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed. Committal proceedings has been registered by the learned Magistrate. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes appear to have been issued by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner finds such processes chasing him now. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But he apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on BA.2181/08 : 2 : merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. He, therefore, prays that directions under Section 438 or 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail when he appears and applies for bail. 3. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary and another Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 2003 SC 4662], it is now trite that powers under section 438 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 find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance BA.2181/08 : 3 : 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]. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. 6. Needless to say the claim of the petitioner for bail has to be considered by the learned Magistrate in the light of the decision reported in Sukumari Vs. State of Kerala [2001 (1) KLT 22]. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks