After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In the result, this petition is dismissed but with the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In the result, this petition is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders 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…
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 1731 OF 2008 F ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008
O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly found to be in possession of 1.8 litres of arrack on 20.8.06. The petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage or thereafter. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Committal proceedings has been registered. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
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 BA.1731/08 : 2 : considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. He, therefore, prays that directions under Section 438 or 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail when he appears and applies for bail.
After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary and another Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 2003 SC 4662], it is now 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, that any such reasons exist.
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 BA.1731/08 : 3 : 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].
Operative part
In the result, this petition is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, this petition is dismissed but with the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala Abkari Act; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 24 Mar 2008. The bench was R BASANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.