IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1994 of 2008()
1. CHATTI GOPALAN @ GOPALAN.T.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/04/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
B.A. No. 1994 OF 2008 B
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces
indictment in a prosecution under the Kerala Abkari Act. The
alleged incident took place on 25.8.07. The petitioner was not
arrested at the crime stage or thereafter, submits the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Investigation is complete. Final
report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by
the learned Magistrate. Committal proceedings has been
registered. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding
accused, coercive processes have been issued against the
petitioner. The petitioner finds such processes chasing him
now. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely
innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The
petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate
and seek regular bail. But he apprehends that his application
for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on
BA.1994/08
: 2 :
merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. He,
therefore, prays that directions under Section 438 or 482
Cr.P.C. may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release
the petitioner on bail when he appears and applies 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 petitioner to appear before the learned
Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate, the
circumstances under which he 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 petitioner on merits, in accordance
BA.1994/08
: 3 :
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, this petition is dismissed but with the
specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders 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 appropriate orders
on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the
date of surrender itself.
6. Needless to say the claim of the petitioner for bail
has to be considered by the learned Magistrate in the light of
the decision reported in Sukumari Vs. State of Kerala [2001
(1) KLT 22].
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
aks