IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6032 of 2009 CRIME NO.141 OF 2009 OF POOYAPALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED: -------------------------------- JAFFAR, S/O.SHAMSUDEEN, AGED 32, SASTHAMKONATHU MELATHIL VEEDU, MULAYILKONAM, KAITHODU, NILAMMEL. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: STATE: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPALLY POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6032 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.141 of 2009 of Pooyappally Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Kottarakkara, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. It is also submitted that after completing the investigation, charge was filed in the case on 20.5.2009. The petitioner apprehends arrest by the police. It is submitted that the police officers are trying to arrest the B.A. NO. 6032 OF 2009 :: 2 :: petitioner. When the investigating officer has laid charge, normally, there is no reason to believe that the investigating officer would arrest the accused without any warrant issued by the learned Magistrate. In this case no warrant is issued by the learned Magistrate, to the knowledge of the petitioner. There is no such allegation as well. 4. The petitioner moved an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, which was disposed of by the order dated 18.9.2009 holding that the petitioner can approach the Magistrate's Court for regular bail. 5. The apprehension of the petitioner is that if the petitioner surrenders before the trial court, there is every likelihood of the Magistrate remanding the petitioner to judicial custody. 6. In Biju v. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLT 280), this Court had laid down the principles in respect of grant of bail by the learned Magistrate immediately after the application is filed for grant of bail. I do not think that the learned Magistrate will not take into account the aforesaid decision. B.A. NO. 6032 OF 2009 :: 3 :: Leaving open the right of the petitioner to move for regular bail, this Bail Application is closed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/