IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 5631 of 2007()
1. M.SHAJAHAN, AGED 40,
... Petitioner
2. RAHMATHULLAH, AGED 38,
3. NOUSHAD, AGED 33,
4. SHAJAHAN, AGED 36, S/O HANEEFAKUNJU,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.HASSAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :19/09/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A.NO. 5631 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are
accused 16, 30, 28 and 29 respectively in a Sessions Case
where they face indictment for offences punishable, inter alia,
under Sec.333 of the IPC and Sec.3 of P.D.P.P. Act.
2. Investigation is complete. Final report has already
been filed. The case has been committed to the Court of
Session. The case was registered as S.C.No.1081/04 before
the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kollam. The
petitioners have not appeared before the learned Sessions
Judge. Consequently, warrants of arrest have been issued
against the petitioners. The petitioners find such warrants of
arrest chasing them.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,
B.A.NO. 5631 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
the petitioners are absolutely innocent. Their omission/failure to
appear before the learned Sessions Judge was not wilful or
deliberate; but was due to reasons beyond their control. They
are prepared to surrender before the learned Sessions Judge and
seek regular bail. But they apprehend that their applications for
regular bail may not be considered by the learned Sessions
Judge on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
3. I have considered all the relevant inputs. 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 petitioners to appear before the learned
Sessions Judge and explain to the learned Sessions Judge the
circumstances under which they could not earlier appear before
the learned Sessions Judge. I have no reason to assume that the
learned Sessions Judge would not consider the petitioners’
applications for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law
B.A.NO. 5631 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
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 bail application is dismissed; but with
the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the
learned Sessions Judge and seek bail, after giving sufficient
prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned
Sessions Judge must proceed to pass appropriate orders on
merits and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge