IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1476 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME 346/07 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 10 & 11. --------------------------------------------- 1. MAHASHOOK P., S/O. AHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 22 YEARS, `AYSHA MANZIL', PARIYARAM AMSOM, KORANPEEDIKA, C.POYIL POST, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. ABID, S/O. ABDULLA, AGED 20 YEARS, KHADEEJA HOUSE, PARIYARAM AMSOM, KORANPEEDIKA, C.POYIL POST, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT. ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 1476 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners face indictment as accused Nos.10 and 11 in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under section 365 IPC. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners have never been arrested - at the crime stage or thereafter. They apprehend imminent arrest in execution of a non-bailable warrants issued against them by the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. It is prayed that directions under section 438 Cr.P.C. may be issued in favour of the petitioners. 3. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary and BA.1476/08 : 2 : 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 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 BA.1476/08 : 3 : (1) KLT 339]. 5. In the result, this petition 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) aks