IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl.No. 2096 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.5/02 OF KUMBLA EXCISE RANGE) CP.49/2008 of J.M.F.C.,KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------- RAGHAVAN, AGE 38/08, S/O.KORAGA, DARBAR KATTA, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBLA EXCISE RANGE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 2096 OF 2008 F ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly found to be in possession of 10 x 375 ml of IMFL on 29.1.02. The petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage or thereafter. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings has been registered. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner finds such processes chasing him now. He apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. He had no knowledge about the proceedings initiated against him. 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 BA.2096/08 : 2 : Magistrate on 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 BA.2096/08 : 3 : 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 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