IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 3722 of 2007()
1. SIVAN PILLAI, S/O. SANKARAKURUP,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :20/06/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.3722 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2007
ORDER
Petitioner is accused No.3 in a prosecution, inter alia, under
Section 452 Cr.P.C. That is the only non bailable offence alleged.
Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. The
petitioner is employed abroad. He did not receive any notice or
summons to appear before the learned Magistrate. In these
circumstances, he had not appeared before the learned Magistrate.
But the learned Magistrate has issued coercive processes to compel
the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner is willing to surrender
before the learned Magistrate, 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 further prays that
appropriate directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C and/or 482 Cr.P.C
issued in favour of the petitioner.
2. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of
Bihar [A.I.R 2003 S.C 4662], it is trite that powers under Section 438
Cr.P.C can be issued 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.
B.A.No.3722 of 2007 2
3. 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 have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate
would not consider such application on merits, in accordance with law
and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or
specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general
directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339].
4. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but
with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears 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 and expeditiously –
on the date of surrender itself, unless there are compelling reasons.
5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-