IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1476 of 2008()
1. MAHASHOOK P.,
... Petitioner
2. ABID, S/O. ABDULLA, AGED 20 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :10/03/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
B.A. No. 1476 OF 2008
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners face
indictment as accused Nos.10 and 11 in a prosecution for
offences punishable, inter alia, under section 365 IPC.
Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed.
Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The
petitioners have never been arrested – at the crime stage or
thereafter. They apprehend imminent arrest in execution of a
non-bailable warrants issued against them by the learned
Magistrate after taking cognizance.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners are innocent. It is prayed that directions
under section 438 Cr.P.C. may be issued in favour of the
petitioners.
3. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary and
BA.1476/08
: 2 :
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
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
BA.1476/08
: 3 :
(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