High Court Kerala High Court

Soumini vs Excise Inspector on 15 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
Soumini vs Excise Inspector on 15 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 901 of 2008()


1. SOUMINI, AGED 48 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. EXCISE INSPECTOR, KUMBLA EXCISE RANGE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.MADHU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :15/02/2008

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J.

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

                             B.A.No.901  of 2008

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

              Dated this  the  15th day of February 2008


                                   O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, a woman,

faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. She was allegedly

found to keep 60×100 ml of arrack on 29/10/2006. Investigation

is now complete. Final report has already been filed. Committal

proceedings has been registered. Reckoning the petitioner as

absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued

against the petitioner. Such processes are chasing the petitioner

now.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was

not wilful or deliberate. The petitioner is willing to surrender

before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But he

apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered

by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously. He, therefore, prays that directions under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to the learned Magistrate to

release the petitioner on bail when he appears and applies for

bail.

B.A.No.901/08 2

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

Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate, the

circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before

the learned Magistrate. I find absolutely no reason to assume

that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application

for bail to be filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with

law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No

special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient

general directions have been issued in Alice George vs. Deputy

Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339].

4. In the result, this bail application is dismissed but

with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders

before the learned Magistrate and applies for 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date

of surrender itself.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

B.A.No.901/08 3

B.A.No.901/08 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007