IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 2449 of 2008()
1. VIJAYAN, MADATHIL PARAMBIL VEEDU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.AJITH MURALI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :11/04/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2449 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
indictment in a prosecution under the Kerala Abkari Act. The
petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage or thereafter.
Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed.
Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings has been
registered. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused,
coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner.
The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in execution of
such processes.
2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent.
His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The
petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to surrender before
the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner
B.A. No. 2449 of 2008 -: 2 :-
apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be
considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance
with law and expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, that
the petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to the
learned Magistrate to release him on bail when he appears
before the learned Magistrate.
3. 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.
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 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
B.A. No. 2449 of 2008 -: 3 :-
directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision
reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police
(2003 (1) KLT 339).
5. 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. Needless to say,
the application for bail will have to be considered in the light of
the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22).
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/