IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 5998 of 2007()
1. SATHEESH, S/O.CHINNU,
... Petitioner
2. SANOJ, S/O.CHANDRAN,
3. SATHEESH, S/O.CHANDRAN,
4. SUBRAMANYAN, S/O.KUNJAYYARIAN,
5. RAJESH, S/O.AYYAPPAN KUTTY,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJIT
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :08/10/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A.NO. 5998 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are
accused in a crime registered initially under Sec.324 read with
Sec. 149 of the IPC subsequently, in the course of
investigation, allegation under Sec.326 of the IPC has been
included. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely
innocent. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that
anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the incident is an
off-shoot of political rivalry between the B.J.P. and CPI(M).
Moreover, investigation is already complete now. Final report
has already been filed. In these circumstances, it is for the
petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek
B.A.NO. 5998 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
regular bail. There are no circumstances justifying or
warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable
discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C., submits the learned
Public Prosecutor.
3. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public
Prosecutor. 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
Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the
circumstances under which they could not earlier appear before
the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the
learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioners’
applications for regular bail on merits in accordance with law
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
B.A.NO. 5998 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
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
Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek 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 and expeditiously – on the date of
surrender itself.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge