IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 7589 of 2007()
1. IBRAIM, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :07/12/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.7589 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of December 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
indictment in a prosecution under Section 225B I.P.C. He had
allegedly escaped from the custody of the Amen of the Family
Court who had allegedly arrested him in connection with the
matrimonial proceedings. Crime was registered in 2002.
Cognizance was taken. At the crime stage, the petitioner was
enlarged on bail. He could not later appear before the learned
Magistrate. After cognizance, reckoning him as absconding
accused, the case has been transferred to the list of long pending
cases. Coercive processes have been issued against the
petitioner. The petitioner finds such coercive processes chasing
him.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was
not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner is willing to surrender
before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But he
apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered
B.A.No.7589/07 2
by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the matrimonial proceedings before the Family Court has been
settled and no such proceedings is pending now. He, therefore,
prays that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to
the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail when he
appears and applies for bail.
3. 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 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 find absolutely no reason to assume
that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application
B.A.No.7589/07 3
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 Criminal Miscellaneous Case 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
B.A.No.7589/07 4
B.A.No.7589/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007