IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 2180 of 2008()
1. ABDUL AZEEZ C.K., S/O.CHELAKODAN HAMZA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP:BY THE PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN
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. 2180 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 1st
accused in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter
alia, under Sec.498A of the IPC. Investigation was complete.
Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken. The petitioner
had entered appearance. But, in the course of trial, he was
compelled to be away from India. He could not, therefore,
continue to appear. The co-accused, who faced trial, have
already been found not guilty and acquitted. The case against
the petitioner has been split up and later transferred to the list
of Long Pending Cases. Coercive processes have been issued
against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate to secure his
presence. The petitioner finds such processes chasing him.
He apprehends imminent arrest.
B.A. No. 2180 of 2008 -: 2 :-
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not
wilful or deliberate. 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, in these
circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court for a
direction to the learned Magistrate to release him on bail when
he appears 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 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
B.A. No. 2180 of 2008 -: 3 :-
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).
5. In the result, this application is dismissed; but with the
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.
6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/