IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 227 of 2008()
1. ANTONY P.A.,AGED 32, S/O.AUGUSTINE P.E.,
... Petitioner
2. DHINU C.S., AGED 20, S/O. SUDHAKARAN,
3. SHYMON S., AGED 24, S/O. SADANANDAN,
4. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 39,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :16/01/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
B.A. No. 227 OF 2008
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners face
indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia,
under Section 324 IPC. All offences are bailable. The
petitioners were enlarged on bail at the crime stage. But later,
after the final report was filed, the petitioners could not
appear. Coercive processes are issued against the
petitioners. The petitioners find such processes chasing
them.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are absolutely innocent. Their absence earlier
was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioners are willing to
surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail.
But they apprehend that their application for bail may not be
considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in
accordance with law and expeditiously. They, therefore, pray
BA.227/08
: 2 :
that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to
the learned Magistrate to release the petitioners on bail when
they appear and apply for bail.
3. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary and
another Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 2003 SC 4662], it is now trite
that powers under section 438 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 find absolutely no reason to
assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the
application for bail to be filed by the petitioners on merits, in
BA.227/08
: 3 :
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 petition is dismissed but with the
specific 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the
date of surrender itself.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
aks