Thulasi vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 6 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 66 of 2009()


1. THULASI, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.PRASAD,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOODAL.
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.SETHUNATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :06/01/2009

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT, J.
            -------------------------------------------------
                    Crl.M.C. No. 66 of 2009
            -------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009

                               ORDER

The petitioner – a woman, faces indictment in a

prosecution under the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act.

The petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage.

Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed.

Cognizance has been taken. Reckoning the petitioner as an

absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued

against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. Such

processes are chasing the petitioner now. The petitioner

apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes.

2. According to the petitioner, she is absolutely innocent.

Her absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The

petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to surrender before

the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner

Crl.M.C. No. 66 of 2009 -: 2 :-

apprehends that her application for regular bail may not be

considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance

with law and expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, that

the petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to the

learned Magistrate to release her on bail when she appears

before the learned Magistrate.

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

Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the

circumstances under which she could not earlier appear before

the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the

learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioner’s

application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law

and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to

be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general

directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision

reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

(2003 (1) KLT 339).

4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the

observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned

Magistrate and seeks 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 and

Crl.M.C. No. 66 of 2009 -: 3 :-

expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. Needless to say,

the application for bail will have to be considered in the light of

the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22).

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

the petitioner.

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/