IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 2096 of 2008()
1. RAGHAVAN, AGE 38/08, S/O.KORAGA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/04/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
B.A. No. 2096 OF 2008 F
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces
indictment in a prosecution under the Kerala Abkari Act. He
was allegedly found to be in possession of 10 x 375 ml of
IMFL on 29.1.02. The petitioner was not arrested at the crime
stage or thereafter. Investigation is complete. Final report
has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken.
Committal proceedings has been registered. Reckoning the
petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes
have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner finds
such processes chasing him now. He apprehends imminent
arrest.
2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely
innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. He
had no knowledge about the proceedings initiated against
him. 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 by the learned
BA.2096/08
: 2 :
Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously. He, therefore, prays that directions under
Section 438 or 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. 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 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
BA.2096/08
: 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 petition 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.
6. Needless to say, the claim of the petitioner for bail
has to be considered by the learned Magistrate in the light of
the decision reported in Sukumari Vs. State of Kerala [2001
(1) KLT 22].
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
aks