Surendran.E vs State Of Kerala And Another on 30 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 467 of 2009()



1. SURENDRAN.E
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :30/01/2009

 O R D E R
                             R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C. No.467 of 2009
                     -------------------------------------
             Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009

                                  ORDER

Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging

the offence punishable under Section 498 A I.P.C. The petitioner

is the husband of the defacto complainant. Investigation is in

progress. The petitioner has not been arrested yet. The

petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

2. The petitioner has not filed any application for

anticipatory bail. He has not surrendered before the

Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate. The petitioner

has now chosen to come before this Court with this petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. What is the direction that the petitioner seeks under

Section 482 Cr.P.C in these circumstances ? The learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that there may be a direction

to the court below to consider his application for regular bail on

merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.

4. No special or specific directions appear to be

necessary. The petitioner has not chosen to seek anticipatory

Crl.M.C. No.467 of 2009 2

bail. He must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the

learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the ordinary

and normal course. I have no reason to assume that the

petitioner’s application for regular bail shall not be considreed

by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general

directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The

Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. I am

satisfied that no further or more specific directions need be

issued.

5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but

with the above specific observations.

6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel

for the petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-