IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1342 of 2008()
1. SREEKUMAR, S/O. NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.ANIL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/03/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.1342 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of March 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia
under Section 307 read with 149 I.P.C. Crime was registered in
2000. Final report was filed and the committal proceedings was
registered as C.P.No.19/02. Consequent to non-appearance of
the petitioner, the case was transferred to the list of long
pending cases in 2003. Coercive processes have been issued
against the petitioner, reckoning him as an absconding accused.
The petitioner finds such processes chasing him now.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was
not wilful or deliberate. 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 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.
B.A.No.1342/08 2
3. 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 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
B.A.No.1342/08 3
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
B.A.No.1342/08 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007