IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3699 of 2008()
1. RAGINI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :03/10/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 3699 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner, a woman, faces indictment in a prosecution
under the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act. Final report has
already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned
Magistrate. Committal proceedings has been registered. The
petitioner was not arrested at the time of detection of the offence
on the alleged reason that there were no woman official in the
team which detected the offence. Petitioner is willing to
surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek bail. But she
apprehends that her application may not be considered by the
learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously. She has now come to this Court with this petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that direction may be
issued to ensure that the dictum in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of
Police (2003 (1) KLT 339) and Sukumari v. State of Kerala
(2001 (1) KLT 22) is complied with and that the petitioner’s
Crl.M.C.No. 3699 of 2008
2
application for regular bail is considered on merits, in accordance with
law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.
2. I am not persuaded to agree that any special or specific
direction deserves to be issued. Sufficient general directions have
already been issued by this Court in the decisions cited supra. I am
not satisfied that any special or separate direction deserves to be issued
in each case to the learned Magistrate to comply with the directions
already issued. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate
shall not follow the decisions in Alice George and Sukumar (supra).
If there be non-compliance, the avenues of challenge/complaint are
available to the petitioner.
4. This application is dismissed, but with the above specific
observations.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm