High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
BABU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. ARUMUGHAN v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Bail Appl No. 4856 of 2007(B)  RD-KL 15354 (10 August 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMBail Appl No. 4856 of 2007(B)
1. BABU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. ARUMUGHAN,
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J= = = = = = = = = = = = = B.A.No. 4856 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2007
ORDERApplication for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations inter alia, under Sec.3(1) X of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act. and Sec.307 IPC. Investigation is complete. Final Report has already been filed. The case has been committed and numbered to the Sessions Court. The petitioner did not appear before the learned Sessions Judge on the date of posting. Consequently a warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner finds the warrant of arrest issued by the learned Sessions Judge chasing him. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence was not wilful. He is willing to surrender before the learned Sessions Judge and cooperate with the learned Sessions Judge for the expeditious disposal of the case. But he apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Sessions Judge. In these circumstances, appropriate directions may be issued under section 438 Cr.P.C and/or 482 Cr.P.C, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. B.A.No.4856 of 2007 2
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 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 to conclude that any such reasons exist.
3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Sessions Judge and explain to the learned Sessions Judge the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Sessions Judge 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 B.A.No.4856 of 2007 3 before the learned Sessions Judge and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Sessions Judge must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself, unless there are compelling reasons. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.