IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 2226 of 2008()
1. THELAKKADAN SULAIMAN, S/O.ABDULLA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.SATHEESH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :10/04/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.2226 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces indictment
as the 11th accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter
alia, under Sections 332 and 130 r/w 149 I.P.C. Co-accused who
faced trial were found not guilty and acquitted. But the petitioner
was not available to be proceeded with. The case against him has
hence been split up. The case has been transferred to the list of
Long Pending Cases. Coercive processes have been issued
against the petitioner. The petitioner finds such processes
chasing him. He apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application
and submits that the petitioner may be directed to surrender
before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail.
3. After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of
Bihar [A.I.R 2003 S.C 4662], it is well settled that powers under
Section 438 Cr.P.C can be invoked even in favour of an 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.
B.A.No.2226 of 2008 2
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 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].
5. 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, in the
light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1)
K.L.T 22].
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-