High Court Kerala High Court

Sheikunhi vs State Of Kerala on 28 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sheikunhi vs State Of Kerala on 28 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4614 of 2008()



1. SHEIKUNHI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :28/11/2008

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J
                       ------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C. No.4614 of 2008
                       -------------------------------------
            Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008

                                   ORDER

Petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging

offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 332 and 342 r/w

149 I.P.C. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in

progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. The

petitioners applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions

Court and before the Bail Bench of this Court unsuccessfully, it

is submitted. They have now come before this Court again with

a prayer for issue of directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. What

are the directions sought ? The counsel prays that the learned

Magistrate may be directed to consider the application for bail to

be filed by the petitioners after their surrender before the

Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate in accordance

with law, on merits and expeditiously.

2. Sufficient general directions have already been issued

in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

[2003(1) KLT 339]. I am not satisfied that it is necessary for

this Court in every subsequent case to issue directions under

Crl.M.C. No.4614 of 2008 2

Section 482 Cr.P.C to the Magistracy to follow the dictum in

Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police .

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

the same shall not be done. If there be non compliance, the

avenues of challenge/complaint are available for the petitioners.

3. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but

with the above specific observations.

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

for the petitioners for production before the court below.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-