I have considered all the relevant inputs. In BharatChaudhary v. State of Bihar

B.A.No.6101/0723.I have considered all the relevant inputs. In BharatChaudhary 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 anon bailable warrant issued in a pending proceedings. But even for that, sufficient and satisfactory reasons must be shown toexist 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 learnedMagistrate 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. Nospecial or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficientgeneral directions have been issued in Alice George vs. DeputySuperintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339]. B.A.No.6101/0735.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 sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orderson merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE)jsr B.A.No.6101/074 B.A.No.6101/075 R.BASANT, J.CRL.M.CNo.ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007