High Court Kerala High Court

Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2006

Kerala High Court
Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 5021 of 2006()


1. SHAJI, AGED 43 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SUKU, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVA,
3. ROY MARKOSE, AGED 33 YEARS,
4. REJI, AGED 34 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DIRECTOR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BIJU M.JOHN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :08/08/2006

 O R D E R
                               R. BASANT, J.
                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        B.A.No.  5021  of   2006
                       -  - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                Dated this the  8th day of   August, 2006


                                   O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners face indictment in

a prosecution, inter alia, under Section 308 and 326 r/w. 120B I.P.C.

Cognizance has been taken by the court of Sessions. Consequent to

non-appearance of the petitioners, they find non-bailable warrants

issued by the learned Sessions Judge chasing them. They have rushed

to this court with a prayer that directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

may be invoked in their favour.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The

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

by a Court. There are no circumstances justifying invocation of the

discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Petitioners may be directed

to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek bail in the regular

and ordinary course, submits the Prosecutor.

3. I find merit in the submissions of the learned Prosecutor. Of

B.A.No. 5021 of 2006 2

course, powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be invoked in an appropriate

case even when the apprehended arrest is in execution of a non-bailable

warrant issued by a court after taking cognizance. But for that sufficient

and compelling reasons must be shown to exist. I do not find any such

circumstances in this case. 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 application for bail on merits and expeditiously.

4. This application is hence dismissed, but with the observation that

if the petitioners surrender 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, unless there are

compelling reasons.

(R. BASANT)

B.A.No. 5021 of 2006 3

Judge

tm