IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 2242 of 2008()
1. BIJU LAWRENCE, AGED 30,
... Petitioner
2. BERNARD, AGED 32, BEENA DALE,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.SASITH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :10/04/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.2242 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces indictment
in a prosecution alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under
Section 452 I.P.C. The alleged incident had taken place on
14.01.08. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already
been filed. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and
registered the Calendar Case. The petitioner apprehends
imminent arrest in that crime.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor reports that the final
report having already been filed and the court already having
taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioner as C.C.605
of 2008, the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the
learned Magistrate and seek regular bail.
3. I find merit in that opposition by the learned Public
Prosecutor. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of
Bihar [A.I.R 2003 S.C 4662], it is well settled that powers under
Section 438 Cr.P.C can be invoked even in favour of an 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
B.A.No.2242 of 2008 2
invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section
438 Cr.P.C. I do not find any such reasons in this case.
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 learned
Magistrate would not consider such application on merits, in
accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the
same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary.
Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice
George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)
KLT 339].
5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed,
but with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears
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 and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
B.A.No.2242 of 2008 3