IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 4981 of 2007(A)
1. ANIL, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.ARAVINDAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :14/08/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.4981 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of August 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
allegations under Section 498A I.P.C. The parties are before the
matrimonial court and there are several proceedings between
them. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already
been filed, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is absolutely innocent. It is prayed that directions
under Section 438 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the
petitioner.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in as
much as the final report is filed, it is not necessary to invoke the
powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner may be
directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek
regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the learned Public
Prosecutor.
4. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of
Bihar [AIR 2003 SC 4662] it is well settled that powers under
Section 438 Cr.P.C can be invoked even in favour of the accused
who apprehends arrest in execution of a non bailable warrant
issued in a pending proceedings. But even for that, sufficient
B.A.No.4981/07 2
and satisfactory reasons must be shown to exist to justify the
invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. I do not find any such reasons in this case.
5. I am satisfied that it is not necessary to issue any
directions under Section 438 and/or 482 Cr.P.C. 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 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 bail application 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.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
B.A.No.4981/07 3
B.A.No.4981/07 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007