IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 5036 of 2007()
1. SAJI, AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :20/08/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.5036 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. Investigation is now
complete. Final report has already been filed. Committal court
has taken cognizance. Coercive processes have been issued
against the petitioner. The petitioner finds a warrant of arrest
issued by the learned Magistrate chasing him.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not
wilful. But was on account of reasons beyond his control. The
petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and
apply for bail. But he apprehends that his application for bail may
not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in
accordance with law and expeditiously. 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. After the decision 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
B.A.No.5036/07 2
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 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 bail application 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 // True Copy// PA to Judge
B.A.No.5036/07 3
B.A.No.5036/07 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007