IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4345 of 2008()
1. ASHOK KUMAR, S/O.LATE PADMANABHA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :13/11/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.4345 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner faces allegations in a crime alleging commission of
offences punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act. Crime was
registered as early as in 2006. According to the petitioner he is
absolutely innocent. He was not earlier arrayed as an accused.
Now attempts are being made to array him as an accused and to
arrest him. The petitioner had moved this Court for anticipatory
bail and the bail Bench of this Court had already dismissed that
application. The petitioner has not challenged the said order. The
petitioner has not so far appeared before the learned Magistrate or
the Investigating Officer and he has not sought regular bail.
2. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a prayer
that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in his
favour. What are the directions to be issued ? The counsel prays
that the learned Magistrate may be directed to consider the
application for bail on the date of surrender itself.
3. I find no merit in this prayer. It is for the petitioner to
surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate
and seek regular bail. This Court has time and again repeated that
applications for bail of an accused person, who surrenders before
the learned Magistrate must be considered on merits, in accordance
with law and expeditiously.
Crl.M.C. No.4345 of 2008 2
4. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in
Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)
KLT 339]. I am not satisfied that it is necessary for this Court in
every subsequent case to issue directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C
to the Magistracy to follow the dictum in Alice George v. The
Deputy Superintendent of Police . Every court must do the
same. I have no reason to assume that the same shall not be done.
If there be non compliance, the avenues of challenge/complaint are
available for the petitioner.
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 petitioners for production before the court below.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-