IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 157 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.120/07 OF MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED --------------------------------------- RENJITH @ VENKITESWARAN, S/O.NAKULAN, MADHAVA NIVAS, KOCHIKKAT HOUSE, CHAMAKKALA KARA, CHENTIRAPINNI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVUR, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.NO. 157 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 3rd accused. Altogether, there are 4 accused persons. The accused persons face allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.326 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. In the F.I.R. no person is named. In the course of investigation, the identity of the miscreants has been ascertained. Accused 1 and 2 have already been arrested. The petitioner has not been arrested so far. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. It is prayed that directions under Sec.438 and/or Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be issued in favour of the petitioner. B.A.NO. 157 OF 2008 -: 2 :- 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor only submits that the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 4. 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. 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 the petitioner's application 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 B.A.NO. 157 OF 2008 -: 3 :- (2003 (1) KLT 339). 6. In the result, this application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks 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