IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 4380 of 2007()
1. VIJAYAKUMAR.R, S/O RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :19/07/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.4380 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of July 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner was allegedly
found to be in possession of 10 litres of arrack on 31/8/2004. Crime
was registered. Investigation is complete. Final report has already
been filed. Committal proceedings has been registered before the
learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of
coercive processes issued by the learned Magistrate.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. He prays that directions under
Section 438 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner.
3. The application is opposed by the learned Public
Prosecutor. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned
Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the
learned Public Prosecutor. I have considered all the relevant inputs.
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 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 these cases.
B.A.No.4380/07 2
4. 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].
5. 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
// True Copy// PA to Judge
B.A.No.4380/07 3
B.A.No.4380/07 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007