IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 2183 of 2008()
1. K.U.NAZAR, AGED 36, S/O.C.K.UMMER
... Petitioner
2. C.K. UMMER, AGED 57, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU
3. AZIYA, AGED 54, W/O.C.K.UMMER
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.HASSAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :01/04/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2183 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face
indictment in a prosecution under Sec.498A read with Sec.34
of the IPC. It is submitted that the petitioners had entered
appearance before the learned Magistrate and were enlarged
on bail. The disputes between the spouses have now been
settled and certain terms are to be complied with. The
petitioners could not appear before the learned Magistrate on
the date specified for reporting final settlement. Applications
were filed on their behalf. But the learned Magistrate
rejected the same and issued coercive processes against the
petitioners. The petitioners find such processes chasing them.
2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely
innocent. They are making bona fide attempt to settle the
B.A. No. 2183 of 2008 -: 2 :-
matter. The petitioners, in these circumstances, want to
surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail.
The petitioners apprehend that their applications 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 petitioners have come to this Court for a
direction to the learned Magistrate to release them on bail when
they appear 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 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 would not consider the petitioners’
applications for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law
B.A. No. 2183 of 2008 -: 3 :-
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).
5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with
the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the
learned Magistrate and seek 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)
Nan/