High Court Kerala High Court

Sudhakaran vs The State Of Kerala on 21 June, 2007

Kerala High Court
Sudhakaran vs The State Of Kerala on 21 June, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 3740 of 2007()


1. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.KUNJUMON, AGED 24 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ASHRAF @ APPACHI, S/O.BEERAN, AGED

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.A.CHACKO

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :21/06/2007

 O R D E R
                                   R.BASANT, J

                         ------------------------------------

                             B.A.No.3740 of 2007

                         -------------------------------------

                     Dated this the 21st day of June, 2007


                                      ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 and

3 in a pending prosecution under Section 379 read with 34 I.P.C.

Consequent to their non appearance before the learned Magistrate,

they find warrants of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate chasing

them. They are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate,

but apprehends that their application for bail may not be considered

by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously. In these circumstances, the petitioners pray that

directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C may be issued in their favour.

2. The decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar

[A.I.R 2003 S.C 4662] is authority for the proposition that powers

under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be invoked even in a case where the

apprehended arrest is in execution of a non bailable warrant issued by

a court. But even for that sufficient and satisfactory reasons must be

shown to exist. I find no such reasons in this case.

3. 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 have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate

B.A.No.3740 of 2007 2

would not consider such application on merits, in accordance with law

and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or

specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general

directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy

Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339].

4. This bail application is, in these circumstances, dismissed.,

but with the specific observation that if the petitioners appear 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 and expeditiously –

on the date of surrender itself.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-