IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 4168 of 2007()
1. SHAJAHAN @ RIYAS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :03/07/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A.NO. 4168 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
indictment for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.395 of
the IPC. Investigation is complete. Final report has already
been filed. The committal court has taken cognizance. As the
petitioner was not available, a warrant of arrest has been
issued to procure his presence. According to the petitioner,
he is innocent. His absence was not wilful. The petitioner, in
these circumstances, wants to surrender before the learned
Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner 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 prayed that directions under Sec.438
and/or 482 of the Cr.P.C. may be issued in favour of the
B.A.NO. 4168 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
petitioner.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. In the result, this application is dismissed; but with the
observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned
B.A.NO. 4168 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
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