IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1535 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.68/07 OF HARIPAD POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 8,9 AND 11 ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SHIJI, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.PANKAJAKSHAN, VALUPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PILAPPUZHA THEKKUM MURI, HARIPAD VILLAGE. 2. ANEESH, S/O.ACHUTHAN, KAVU PARAMBIL HOUSE, PILAPPUZHA THEKKUM MURI, HARIPAD VILLAGE. 3. SUKESH, S/O.SOMAN, NERIYAM PALLATHU, LAKSHAM HOUSE, PILAPPUZHA THEKKUM MURI, HARIPAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.1535 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Section 307 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3 of the P.D.P.P.Act. 2. The petitioners have not been arrested so far. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has already been taken by the learned Magistrate, reports the learned Public Prosecutor. Number of the committal proceedings is not furnished to this court by either the petitioners or the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the police do not now want to arrest the petitioners except in execution of coercive processes, if any, issued by the learned Magistrate. 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 B.A.No.1535/08 2 extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I do not find any such reasons in this case. 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 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 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. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.1535/08 3 B.A.No.1535/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007