High Court Kerala High Court

Nalinakshi vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2007

Kerala High Court
Nalinakshi vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 50 of 2007()


1. NALINAKSHI, W/O. SREEDHARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :08/01/2007

 O R D E R


                               R. BASANT, J.

               -------------------------------------------------

                        CRL.M.C.NO. 50 OF  2007

               -------------------------------------------------

              Dated this the 8th day of January, 2007


                                   ORDER

The petitioner is the 2nd accused in a prosecution, inter

alia, under Sec.58 of the Kerala Abkari Act. The crux of the

allegations is that the petitioner’s son – the 1st accused, was

found in possession of, inter alia, 448 litres of spirit in a

building. The 1st accused was arrested and investigation

continued. Final report has now been filed arraying the

petitioner also as 2nd accused. Cognizance has been taken by

the committal court. A warrant of arrest has been issued

against the petitioner now to procure her presence. The

petitioner without and before appearing before the learned

Magistrate has rushed to this Court with this petition under

Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. She apprehends that the learned

Magistrate may not consider her application for bail on merits,

in accordance with law and expeditiously. There is no

worthwhile allegation whatsoever against her. The learned

Magistrate may be directed to consider the application for bail

on merits and pass orders expeditiously.

CRL.M.C.NO. 50 OF 2007 -: 2 :-

2. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned

Magistrate and apply for bail. It has often been repeated by the

superior courts that the mere fact that the offence is triable by a

Court of Session will not absolve the Magistrate/committal court

of his duty/obligation to consider the application for bail on

merits. Such consideration must certainly be undertaken by the

learned Magistrate. The mere fact that the Investigating

Officer has chosen to array the petitioner as an accused cannot

stand in the way of the learned Magistrate granting bail to the

petitioner if there is no worthwhile allegation/material procured

against her.

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

above observations. I may hasten to observe that if the

petitioner surrenders before the learned 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, unless compelling and exceptional reasons are

there.

Sd/-





                                                           (R. BASANT, JUDGE)


Nan/

               //true copy//                 P.S. To Judge