IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 3665 of 2007()
1. JOY KALLUMKAL, AGED 43 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :20/06/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A.NO. 3665 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under
Sec.420 of the IPC. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of
a final report submitted by the police which, in turn, is
submitted on the basis of a private complaint filed which was
referred to the police under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
According to the petitioner, he had no knowledge whatsoever
of the pendency of the proceedings. No summons has ever
been served on him. A warrant of arrest is issued against him
unjustifiably. He is, at present, employed abroad. The
petitioner is excepted to be in India during the first week of
July, 2007. He apprehends that he may be arrested in
execution of the warrant. He further apprehends that if he
surrenders before the learned Magistrate, his application for
bail may not be considered on merits, in accordance with law
B.A.NO. 3665 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
and expeditiously. He therefore prays that directions under Sec.
438/482 of the Cr.P.C. may be issued in his favour.
2. It is by now trite that the directions under Sec.438 of
the Cr.P.C. can be issued even in favour of a person who
apprehends arrest in execution of coercive process issued by the
court. (See Bharat Chaudhary and another v. State of
Bihar – AIR 2003 SC 4662). But even then, there must be
compelling reasons to invoke the powers under Sec.438 of the
Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is not a fit case where such
invocation of the powers is necessary. 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 (2003 (1) KLT 339).
3. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the
B.A.NO. 3665 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
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, unless compelling
and exceptional reasons are there.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge