IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1086 of 2008() ----------------------------- CP.161/2007 of J.M.F.C.-II,NEYYATTINKARA CRIME 194/04 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ 2ND ACCUSED ---------------------------- PRAVEEN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, UTHRAM PANANGODU, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, ALONG WITH BA NO. 1087 OF 2008 THE COURT ON 22/02/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. Nos. 1086 and 1087 OF 2008 A ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008 O R D E R These petitions are filed by the 2nd and 3rd accused who along with a co-accused face indictment in a prosecution under section 308 IPC. Crime has been registered. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Petitioners were never arrested at the crime stage or later. After taking cognizance, according to the petitioners, they have not received any summons or processes of the court. Reckoning them as absconding accused, the case against them has been split up. The other co-accused have already been committed to the court of sessions. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioners. They apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are absolutely innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioners are willing to surrender BA.1086&1087/08 : 2 : before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But, they apprehend that their application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. They, therefore, pray that directions under Section 438 or 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioners on bail when they appear and apply 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 petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate, the BA.1086&1087/08 : 3 : circumstances under which they 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 petitioners 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, these petitions are 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) aks