IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 157 of 2008()
1. RENJITH @ VENKITESWARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.LIJU. M.P
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :14/01/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A.NO. 157 OF 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 3rd
accused. Altogether, there are 4 accused persons. The
accused persons face allegations for offences punishable, inter
alia, under Sec.326 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. In the F.I.R.
no person is named. In the course of investigation, the identity
of the miscreants has been ascertained. Accused 1 and 2 have
already been arrested. The petitioner has not been arrested
so far. Investigation is now complete. Final report has
already been filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. It is prayed that directions
under Sec.438 and/or Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be issued in
favour of the petitioner.
B.A.NO. 157 OF 2008 -: 2 :-
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor only submits that the petitioner
may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and
seek regular bail in the ordinary course.
4. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary and another
v. State of Bihar (AIR 2003 SC 4662), it is by now trite that
powers under Sec.438 of the 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 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 have no reason to assume that the
learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioner’s
application for regular bail on merits in accordance with law and
expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to be
necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general
directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision
reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police
B.A.NO. 157 OF 2008 -: 3 :-
(2003 (1) KLT 339).
6. In the result, this application is dismissed; but with the
observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned
Magistrate and seeks 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 and
expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge