IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1259 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME 887/07 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- NALAKATH SIDDIQUE, S/O.UMMER, NALAKATH HOUSE, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 1259 OF 2008 F ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 1st accused. He faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under sections 498A and 420 IPC. Crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety is alleged against the petitioner. It is further alleged that he, along with his friends (A2 and A3), had defrauded his father-in-law by fraudulently inducing him to part with a total amount of Rs.5 lakhs to him. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He prays that anticipatory bail may be granted to him. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the BA.1259/08 : 2 : application. He submits that the investigation is already complete. Final report has already been filed. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary and normal course. 4. 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. 5. 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 BA.1259/08 : 3 : 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]. 6. 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