IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3542 of 2008()
1. RAVEENDRAN, S/O ALAMI,
... Petitioner
2. CHAPPRILA SATHEESHAN, S/O LATE GOPLAN,
3. PRASAD, S/O ANDI, AGED 26 YEARS,
4. VEERAPPAN @ DAMODARAN, S/O LATE KOTTAN,
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :22/09/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3542 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008
ORDER
Petitioners, who face allegations in a crime registered
alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 3(1)(x) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, pray that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C
may be issued to the learned Magistrate to consider their
application for bail when they surrender before the learned
Magistrate after prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the
case, on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on
the date of surrender itself.
2. Sufficient general directions have already been issued
in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
[2003(1) KLT 339]. In Alice George v. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police it has been directed that applications
for bail to be filed by persons surrendering must be considered
expeditiously. In
i) Ali v. State of Kerala [2000(2) KLT 280],
ii) Shanu v. State of Kerala [2000(3) KLT 452],
iii) Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLD
(Cri.)42] and
iv) P.P.Kader v. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLD (Cri.)
250],
Crl.M.C. No.3542 of 2008 2
it has been clearly held that the learned Magistrates must
consider the applications for bail of persons facing indictment
under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act in accordance with law, on merits
and expeditiously and the mere fact that the offence is triable
exclusively by a Court of Session will not justify abdication of
powers by the learned Magistrates under Section 437 Cr.P.C.
3. Thus the law has been clearly settled and specific
general directions have already been issued. I am unable to
agree that in every case this Court must issue specific directions
to the subordinate Magistrates to comply with the directions in
the above decisions. Every court is bound to do the same even
without specific direction in each case. I have no reason to
assume that the learned Magistrate will not comply with the
dicta in the above decisions. If such an unlikely event takes
place, the petitioners’ option to approach the superior courts
shall remain.
4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but
subject to the specific observations made above.
5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel
for the petitioners.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-