IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1205 of 2008() ----------------------------- CR NO.32/03 OF KASARAGOD EXCISE RANGE CP.13/2008 of J.M.F.C.,KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 38/07, S/O. APPU VAIDYAR, ANABAGILU, KASABA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGOD EXCISE RANGE, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1205 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Second application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, who faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act had earlier come to this Court with an application for anticipatory bail. By order dt.23.10.2007 in B.A.No. 6421 of 2007 the said application was dismissed with observations that the petitioner must surrender and seek regular bail. The petitioner has not done the same. He has now come to this court with a renewed claim for anticipatory bail. 2. It is trite that a person, whose application for anticipatory bail has been dismissed, must show satisfactory reaso to justify the renewed favourable consideration of his prayer for anticipatory bail. The learned counsel submits that the change of circumstances that he wants to rely on is the elapse of time and the subsequent filing of the final report by the Investigating Officer. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings B.A.No. 1205 of 2008 2 has been registered. Coercive processes are issued by the learned Magistrate reckoning him as absconding. The petitioner prays that he may be granted anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the petitioner may be directed to appear before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the normal course. 4. I find no valid or acceptable change of circumstance, which can operate as sufficient reason to justify a renewed consideration of the application for anticipatory bail. 5. It is trite after the decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (AIR 2003 SC 4662) that powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be invoked even in favour of a petitioner, who apprehends arrest in the pending case on the strength of a non-bailable warrant issued by the court. Even that is not by itself sufficient to justify the invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I am unable to find any compelling reasons which would justify invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 5. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances B.A.No. 1205 of 2008 3 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 application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he surrenders before the learned Magistrate, on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 6. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R. BASANT) Judge tm