Thulasidharan Pillai vs State on 23 May, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2002 of 2008()



1. THULASIDHARAN PILLAI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BYJU KURIAKOSE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :23/05/2008

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                       ------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C. No.2002 of 2008
                      -------------------------------------
                Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008

                                   ORDER

Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 8

of the Kerala Abkari Act. Investigation is complete. Final report

has already been filed. Committal proceedings has been

registered. The learned Magistrate has issued summons to the

petitioner to appear on 02.06.08.

2. Though the petitioner has received summons to

appear, the petitioner entertains a lingering apprehension that if

and when he appears before the learned Magistrate, the offence

being one punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act, the learned

Magistrate may not grant him regular bail. The petitioner through

counsel has come to this Court with a prayer that appropriate

directions may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the

petitioner on bail.

3. I note that the learned Magistrate has issued only a

summons to secure the presence of the accused. I must in the

absence of any better material assume that the learned

Magistrate has advisedly exercised the discretion under Section

204 Cr.P.C to issue only a summons and not a warrant. The

Crl.M.C. No.2002 of 2008 2

apprehension of the petitioner that he may be arrested and

detained, does not, in these circumstances, really appear to me to

be sound. Be that as it may, it is for the petitioner to appear

before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. I find no

merit in the apprehension that his application for regular bail may

not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in

accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the

same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary.

Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice

George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)

KLT 339].

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

with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears 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

and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. Needless to

say that the learned Magistrate has to consider the bail

application in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of

Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22] and the fact that he has already

conveyed to the petitioner that he has exercised his discretion

Crl.M.C. No.2002 of 2008 3

under Section 204 Cr.P.C to issue only summons and not a

warrant.

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

the petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-