High Court Kerala High Court

Ramesh Shetty vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 25 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Ramesh Shetty vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 25 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4533 of 2008()



1. RAMESH SHETTY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.ANIL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :25/11/2008

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   Crl.M.C.No. 4533 of 2008
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008

                               O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the

offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

He was never arrested by the Investigator though the alleged

offence was committed as early as on 16.2.2006. The petitioner

now apprehends that he may be arrested by the police. He has

therefore come to this court with this petition.

2. According to him he is absolutely innocent. The

proceedings initiated against him are totally unjustified. 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. He has therefore come to

this court seeking directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. The petition is one against an investigation in progress.

If he feels that the proceedings initiated against him is not

justified and that he does not deserve to be arrested, he can seek

anticipatory bail from appropriate court. In the alternative, he

Crl.M.C.No. 4533 of 2008
2

can choose to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned

Magistrate. It appears from this petition that the petitioner is opting to

adopt the latter course. Sufficient general directions have already been

issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of

Police (2003 (1) KLT 339) to the effect that a court considering

application for regular bail of a person who has surrendered before it

must do the same expeditiously. I have no reason to assume that the

learned Magistrate would not discharge this duty in law. The learned

Magistrate must consider the application for bail of the petitioner if he

surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate

and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the

Prosecutor in charge of the case. No special or specific directions

need be issued. I expect the learned Magistrate to comply with the

directions issued in the decision referred above.

4. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations.

5. Hand over the order.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm