High Court Kerala High Court

Unnikuttan vs State Of Kerala on 1 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Unnikuttan vs State Of Kerala on 1 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3306 of 2008()


1. UNNIKUTTAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :01/09/2008

 O R D E R
                           R. BASANT, J.
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                 Crl.M.C.No. 3306 of 2008
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008

                              O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the

offence punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner

was not arrested at the crime stage. Cognizance was taken after

completion of the investigation on the basis of the final report

submitted by the police. The learned Magistrate took cognizance

of the offence and issued a summons to the petitioner. He has to

appear before the learned Magistrate on 24.9.2008. He

apprehends that when he surrenders before the learned

Magistrate, the learned Magistrate may not grant him bail as he

has not been enlarged on bail earlier and is likely to remand him

to custody. The petitioner, in these circumstances, prays that the

learned Magistrate may be directed to consider his application for

regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.

2. I am satisfied that no special or specific direction need

be issued. Sufficient general directions have already been issued

Crl.M.C.No. 3306 of 2008
2

by this Court in the decisions in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police

(2003 (1) KLT 339), Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22)

and Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala (2008 (3) KHC 646). I

have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate will not apply the

principles in the above precedents and shall not consider the bail

application in accordance with law.

3. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however

hasten to observe 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself, in the light of the

decisions referred above.

4. Eventhough a contention is raised in this Crl.M.C. that the

proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioner, at the stage

of arguments only the earlier relief is pressed. I make it clear as

requested by the counsel that this Crl.M.C. is dismissed without

Crl.M.C.No. 3306 of 2008
3

prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise his contentions at the

appropriate stages that charges are not liable to be framed against him.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm