Loading...

K.P.Muhammed vs The Excise Inspector on 6 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
K.P.Muhammed vs The Excise Inspector on 6 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2964 of 2008()


1. K.P.MUHAMMED,S/O.HASSAN HAJI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :06/08/2008

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT, J.
            -------------------------------------------------
                  Crl.M.C. No.2964 of 2008
            -------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008

                               ORDER

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for

offences punishable under Sec.55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

The prosecution is pending before the learned Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Thalassery, as Calendar Case. The petitioner

is only the owner of the vehicle. He was away in a Gulf

country in connection with his employment. He was not

arrested at the crime stage. He has not received any notice or

processes of the court after cognizance was taken. Reckoning

the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes

have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner finds

such processes chasing him now. The petitioner apprehends

imminent arrest.

2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent.

Crl.M.C. No.2964 of 2008 -: 2 :-

His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner,

in these circumstances, wants to surrender before the learned

Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner apprehends

that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the

learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner

has come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate

to release him on bail when he appears before the learned

Magistrate.

3. 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 have no reason to assume that the

learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioner’s

application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law

and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to

be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general

directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision

reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

(2003 (1) KLT 339).

4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the

observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned

Crl.M.C. No.2964 of 2008 -: 3 :-

Magistrate and seeks 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 and

expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.

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

the petitioner.

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information