IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1257 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.331/07 OF KUMALI POLICE STATION PETITIONER: --------------------------- 1. MANIMARAN, AGED 32, S/O.PERIYASWAMI, LADAPURAM VILLAGE, PERAMBALUR TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. P.PERIYASWAMI, AGED 65, LADAPURAM VILLAGE, PERAMBALUR TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.BANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1257 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are the husband of the de facto complainant and her father-in-law. The marriage had taken place on 14/11/05. It lived in harmony for a very short period of time. One child has been born in the wed-lock. The crime has been registered on the allegation that the petitioners are guilty of matrimonial cruelty against the de facto complainant. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Proceedings are pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Peermedu, as C.C.No.60/08. 2. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the apprehended arrest is on the basis of a process issued by the learned Magistrate in B.A. No. 1257 of 2008 -: 2 :- the pending case. The petitioners may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 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 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). B.A. No. 1257 of 2008 -: 3 :- 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. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge