IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4836 of 2008()
1. SURESH, S/O.GOPALAN, SUMA SADANAM,
... Petitioner
2. LAL, S/O.ANIRUDHAN, MOTTAVILA VEEDU,
3. SAJEEV, S/O.SURENDRAN, SAJEEV VILASOM,
4. RAJESH, S/O.SELVARAJAN, RAJESH BHAVANAM,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :12/12/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.4836 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008
ORDER
Petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging
offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 326 r/w 149 I.P.C.
Investigation is in progress. Altogether there are 49 accused
persons, it is submitted. The petitioners went before the bail
Bench of this Court seeking anticipatory bail. That application
was dismissed. The petitioners had not appeared before the
Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate as directed in the
order passed in the anticipatory bail application. The petitioners
have instead chosen to come to this Court again with this
petition.
2. What is the prayer ? What is the nature of the
directions that are sought under Section 482 Cr.P.C ? The
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a
counter case also. The petitioners only want their bail
application to be considered on merits, in accordance with law
and expeditiously. The learned Magistrate may be directed to
take into account all the necessary circumstances and pass
appropriate orders in the application for regular bail to be filed
by the petitioners.
Crl.M.C. No.4836 of 2008 2
3. I find absolutely no merit in the prayer. Every court is
expected to consider applications for bail filed by the accused,
who surrender before the courts, on merits, in accordance with
law and expeditiously. Such application will have to be
considered by the learned Magistrate under Section 437 Cr.P.C
after adverting to all relevant circumstances. No specific or
special directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general
directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The
Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. I have
no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not pass
an appropriate order on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously.
4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but
with the above observations.
5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-