After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State ofBihar

R.BASANT, J= = = = = = = = = = = = = B.A.No.5697 of 2007= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of September, 2007ORDERApplication for anticipatory bail. The petitioner facesindictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under sections 447 and 324 IPC. Consequent to non-appearanceof the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has issued coerciveprocesses against the petitioner. The coercive processes issuedby the learned Magistrate is chasing him. The case has beentransferred to the list of long pending cases. The petitionerapprehends imminent arrest.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner is absolutely innocent. The absence of the petitionerearlier was not wilful and on account of reasons beyond hiscontrol. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learnedMagistrate and seek bail. He apprehends that his application forbail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. In thesecircumstances, appropriate directions may be issued under B.A.No.5697 of 20072section 438 Cr.P.C and/or 482 Cr.P.C, prays the learned counselfor the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes theapplication. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learnedMagistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate thecircumstances under which he could not earlier appear before thelearned Magistrate.

After the decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [A.I.R 2003 S.C 4662], it is trite that powers under Section438 Cr.P.C can be invoked in favour of a person who apprehendsarrest in execution of a non bailable warrant issued by a court ina pending proceedings. But even for that, sufficient andsatisfactory reasons must be shown to exist. I am not persuadedin the facts and circumstances of this case to conclude that anysuch reasons exist.

It is for the petitioner to appear before the learnedMagistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate thecircumstances under which he could not earlier appear before thelearned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learnedMagistrate would not consider such application on merits, inaccordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the B.A.No.5697 of 20073same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in AliceGeorge v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339].

This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioner appearsbefore the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after givingsufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, thelearned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders onmerits and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself, unlessthere are compelling reasons. (R.BASANT, JUDGE)sj